Partial transcript of Dean on Fox tonight. Good interview. Good truth.

[madfloridian]

Renee has transcribed the interview. I had started to when I saw she had done so. It was a good interview, low key, calm. But he got his points across and did not back down. Here are my favorite parts.
http://shadowbfa.blogspot.com/

Here is the now to be expected lecture on being nice and not playing the blame game.

Alan: You've said that President Bush doesn't care about all of the American people, and you've said something similar about Judge Roberts--that he may love the law but doesn't necessarily love the American people. Do you ever have a concern about rhetoric that you may put out like that, that may be more divisive than uniting?

Howard: I think it's true. I think it's time somebody told the truth. The president said he was a uniter, and turned out to be the most divisive president probably in our history, except perhaps before the Civil War. This is a divisive president, and he got there by not telling the truth. The truth is that there are a lot of people who it turns out, through no fault of their own, really got hammered in this, and they didn't get any help from the federal government. There are a lot of women, for example, who couldn't participate in sports. My wife didn't have equal access to sports; my daughter did. Judge Roberts wants to undo that according to his writings. I think that those things that I say are true, and therefore they need to be said. You can't fix something if you're not willing to point your finger at it."

And the usual lead in of how maybe someone else said it better.

Alan: Barack Obama the other day talked about active racism versus a kind of passive, more innocent kind of negligence. Are they both equally racism and equally reprehensible?

Howard: I think, Alan, you have a mixture of both. I do *not* think President Bush is a racist. I know him personally, and I've never heard him say anything like that. And I don't think he's a homophobe either. But the effect of what he does, does hurt poor people disproportionately, and poor people are members of minority communities. The effect of what he does, does harm gay people disproportionately. So, the argument I would make with both the president and John Roberts is, they may not be overtly racist, but their actions contribute to harm for vulnerable people. And that includes women, it includes members of minority groups including Hispanics and African Americans. It includes anybody that doesn't look like them, and I think that's a problem."

And that is what I think is the most important thing he said tonight...the consequences of the actions of these unthinking neocons hurt people badly...plain and simple.

[applegrove]

1. I agree with Howard.

[Carolab]

2. The problem is "THEY DON'T CARE".

Isn't that the mantra?

[applegrove]

3. If you see old and babies in distress and insist "they should have left"

your problem is a lack of humanity or the care to understand the most basic of rules human beings follow.

[tsuki]

4. The Conservatives think very well, they just have no empathy. If

I have heard a Conservative say "a poor person is poor because they want to be" once, I have heard it hundreds of times. Like someone makes a conscience decision, "Yeah, I want to be poor."

Middle class Conservatives are about to get the shit kicked out of them. We've outsourced all the blue collar jobs we can to bump up Corporate Officers salaries, now we are outsourcing white collar jobs.

Poverty is something that happens to "those people" will soon be coming home to roost and they are going to be surprised by their fellow Conservatives lack of empathy.

[madfloridian]

5. AND I really like his comments on Roberts' testimony today.

Just clear, straight, to the point. Colmes asked about the hearings today.

Howard: Alan, I didn't hear any *answers* today. I heard a lot of legal mumbo jumbo and a lot of dancing around... He is an *accomplished* attorney, there's no question about that. The question is, does he have the interests of the American people in his heart. Let me tell you what I mean by that. This is a guy who is very bright, and nobody can argue with that. This is a guy who's accomplished. But if you don't have compassion, then how can you really be a leader of the American people.

Alan: Do you believe that he's a racist?

Howard: No. I don't think there's any evidence of him being an overt racist but I think that his decisions have had the effect of harming, disproportionately, women, African Americans, and Hispanics."

[Speck Tater]

6. And to think, if the Dems hadn't been too busy playing power games...

That man could have been our president right now.

[Kurovski]

7. *Sigh*

Yep.

[newswolf56]

8. Until now I have always applauded Dean. But this is infuriating:

"I do not think President Bush is a racist. I know him personally, and I've never heard him say anything like that. And I don't think he's a homophobe either."

If Dean in fact is defending Bush like this -- I am depending here on the OP and presuming it is accurate -- I suddenly question Dean's suitability for leadership. OF COURSE Bush is a racist, a homophobe, a hater of the poor. OF COURSE: all Bush's policies prove it: from outsourcing and social-safety-net destruction to New Orleans and skyrocketing prices. And of course Bush hides his bigotry and contempt: it is part of his training as an aristocrat to hide it. What in the name of god is Dean thinking? Truly, I feel betrayed.


Edit: typo.

[MintOreoCookie]

10. So you think a leader of the democratic party needs to attack a republican

president on every issue? I don't. When all a person does is attack the other side it takes away their credibility, in my opinion. I agree with Dean in that I don't think Bush is a racist and that it's his decisions that have had a negative impact on minorities. What evidence do you have to support that he is a racist?

[newswolf56]

15. This is not "every issue" -- this is THE issue in understanding...

what happened in New Orleans and its aftermath. Whatever words come from Bush's lips, his "decisions" (and thus policies) are explicitly racist. These comments by Dean are truly heartsinking. To impose a false separation between perpetrator and effect is intellectually absurd: precisely the same logic used by Holocaust deniers. Please see my response to MaineDem below.

[madfloridian]

17. I don't think Bush is racist either....I think he is clueless and uncaring

I think you are vastly over reacting. He pretty much called it like it is in that interview.

I don't think any of Bush's cronies actually planned anything to be "racial", but I think it turned out that way because he was clueless and heartless.

[MintOreoCookie]

22. Ahh, my sentiments exactly.

[MaineDem]

11. Should Dean have lied?

Should he have said "I know him personally and I've heard him being racist many times"?

One can attack the policies and the statements of a person without attacking the individual. Dean, I think, has done the right thing here - go after the President's policies.

And how do YOU know Bush is a racist and a homophobe? Seriously, how do you know?

[newswolf56]

14. Both a veteran of the Civil Rights Movement and someone...

who (due to my father's employment) spent a substantial part of my childhood and young adulthood in the South, I am painfully aware of the phenomenon of the self-proclaimed "non-racist" conservative who nevertheless has a (metaphorical or real) KuKluxKlan kostume hanging in his back closet. Bush is in fact typical -- even unto his appointment of "good" blacks -- and whether or not Bush has ever acknowledged his racism, there is no doubt about the vicious racism (and malicious class warfare) of the man's policies.

As the Christians say, "by their deeds shall ye know them."

Bush is in fact a malevolent plutocrat, an oligarchic fascist whose fascism is ever more brazen; articulated or not, racism and class warfare are merely intrinsic parts of the supremacist mixture. And Bush's repeated comments about how New Orleans will be better off because of the disaster are but code-words for the white aristocracy's belief New Orleans will be improved by the forcible dislocation of its (mostly black) impoverished people -- not only maliciously racist, but backhanded applause for the largest American ethnic "cleansing" since the Indian Wars.

For Dean (or any other Democratic politician) to cut Bush such slack is a perfect illustration of the nauseating hypocrisy that infects U.S. politics today from top to bottom -- a gut-wrenching measurement of how under corporate domination all politicians sound increasingly the same -- as infuriating as the Rotary-meeting spectacle of self-congratulatory politicians in New Orleans that Mayor Negin so rightfully damned.

In truth, Dean was caught in a clever FOXtrap by the interviewer. Dean might have forthrightly sidestepped the question of Bush's personal racism and pointed instead to the blatant racism manifest in New Orleans: "I don't know; it's not fashionable to admit racism these days. What is relevant here is not what Bush says but what his policies reflect -- and there's no doubting the racism there."

Instead -- in large part because the oligarchy won't permit acknowledgment of the infinitely hateful racism (and class-malice) that yet festers at the core of white society -- Dean (and too many establishment Democrats in general) cling to the lone-gunman notions that Bush has no idea what he is doing and that the consequences of Bush's policies are somehow accidental. They're not: outsourcing, downsizing, forcible reduction of wages, pension-looting, the increasing scarcity of adequately paying jobs, the methodical destruction of the social safety net, the outrage of New Orleans itself -- all this is as deliberate as Dachau.

In fact absolving Bush of the harm inflicted by his policies is exactly the same as arguing that the German people "didn't really intend to exterminate the Jews" when they voted Hitler and the Nazi Party into office.

[MintOreoCookie]

16. Well, it sounds like you have some passionate feelings on this issue

But for you to condemn Dean for saying what he said is a little over the top, in my opinion. Dean may truly believe that Bush is not a racist. Is he wrong? In your eyes he is. In Dean's eyes, he is not. It is a matter of opinion.

[newswolf56]

19. I don't "condemn" Dean per see; in fact -- as I said above --

I generally applaud him, and I will continue to support him (at least until someone better comes along). But in this instance Dean is guilty of surprising shallowness. At the very least he missed a vital opportunity, a teachable moment to acknowledge that class warfare and racism are facets of the same supremacist mindset -- a moment in which his words could have helped unify blacks and whites within the Party rather than foster the growing black/white schism over the causes of New Orleans.

And if we don't speak out, how can we expect representation?

[MintOreoCookie]

20. But you're assuming that Dean believes Bush is a racist.

Dean has no problem stating controversial things. I think if he really believed that Bush was a racist, he would have said so or would have, to a lesser extent, answered that he did not know whether Bush was racist. Instead, he stated outright that he did not believe Bush is a racist.

[madfloridian]

21. Dean does not think Bush is racist. He really does not. He was honest.

He knew him well when they were governors together, and he saw a lot of sides of him. You are right, he does not think Bush is racist.

[MintOreoCookie]

23. LOL I just agreed with your earlier post.

Great minds think alike. ;)

[newswolf56]

25. It makes no difference what Dean believes. Bush is a racist pig...

not because of what comes out of his mouth but because of what he does. The man is expressed by his policies. To argue otherwise is absurd: Bush's policies, and the dire impact of his policies, proves Bush's supremacist mindset beyond any debate. I say again: to argue otherwise is absurd.

If Dean can't see this, he is either blind or far more disappointingly shallow than I ever imagined him to be.

For Dean to let Bush off the hook for his racism -- to literally give Bush a pass -- is infuriating. More to the point, its implicit mealy-mouthing illustrates precisely what ails the Democratic Party today: a leadership vacuum as broad and deep as the Grand Canyon.

Dean's uncharacteristic blindness also panders -- whether deliberately or not -- to the festering racism manifest in the 20/80 white/black schism over whether the atrocity of New Orleans is an expression of racism.

The more I think about it, the more I think Dean may have just slapped black America in the face. Dean unquestionably slapped us all in the face, white or black, who believe New Orleans is the logical, wholly predictable (and therefore passively deliberate) outcome of Bush policy -- that Bush is not the bungling fool so many desperately timid people comfort themselves by believing, but is instead the most cunningly ruthless despot in United States history: the ultimate achievement of the American oligarchy, put in office precisely to restore capitalism to all its former savagery.

With all due respect, if you can't see this -- and all its implications -- there is no point in debating the issue any further. (Besides, I have work to do today, and so can't participate in an interminable debate that is obviously -- again with all due respect -- going nowhere.)

[madfloridian]

27. Oh, good grief.

You are exhibiting all the symptoms of severe tunnel vision. You need to go get your work done.

[MintOreoCookie]

28. Frankly, I think your opinions in this thread are ridiculous.

Just because floridian and I don't agree with you, you're going to throw a tantrum and call us names? Whatever. Grow up. We all have different opinions. It's no fun debating someone when they agree with everything you say. LOL

[newswolf56]

33. The real tantrum is you falsely claiming I "call (you) names."

Just to set the record straight: I didn't think Dean was presidential quality in 2004, and I don't think he is now. When Dean denounces Bush for class warfare -- and he has -- I applaud him; this is the one REAL issue in America today, the core issue whether we are talking about Iraq or New Orleans. I think Dean is adequate as DNC chairman, but -- as his apology for Bush proves -- that's about all.

Indeed, since there are seldom any accidents in politics, I suspect what we are witnessing in Dean's remarks is the beginning of a bipartisan offensive by the Establishment to re-submerge the burgeoning re-acknowledgment of racism and class-warfare that has come out of the New Orleans debacle. "Establishment" is a polite euphemism for "oligarchy"; the oligarchy is abjectly terrified of any such development because acknowledgment of racism and/or class warfare leads directly to recognition of the historical truth of class-struggle in general -- a truth the deliberate avoidance of which is the ultimate purpose behind every falsehood implicit in American politics today.

Debate is useful (and fun) when there's genuine mutual understanding; I have enjoyed many debates on DU in which there were agreements about core principles but impassioned disagreement about details -- and often emergent consensus as a result. However, without that basic agreement, debate is pointless.

For example I doubt I can ever convince you that what happened in New Orleans was a deliberate, predictable atrocity inflicted by specific, meticulously well-thought-out policies -- and you will never convince me the opposite is true: I have seen and covered politics and politicians in this nation for far too long to be blind to the underlying (and infinitely ugly) socioeconomic reality of the American system -- more (and more desperate) poverty than anywhere else in the industrial world -- precisely the grotesque truth exposed in microcosm by New Orleans.

And that, I suspect, is really the quintessential disconnect between us: we have radically different notions of what Dean should do (or should not do) precisely because -- though we each witnessed the same events -- we have radically different understandings of the causes and therefore of their implications and significance. I have no problem accepting our difference as unresolvable: precisely why I sought -- as politely as possible -- to withdraw.

Though I am a Democrat -- a New Deal/Great Society Democrat at that -- before I am a Democrat, I am a journalist: when I think Dean (or any other politician) deserves criticism, I criticize. For me, the "my-candidate-right-or-wrong" absolutism that reflexively brands legitimate criticism a "tantrum" is repugnant. Worse, it stifles precisely the kind of internal debate our Party needs if it is ever to regain the broad-based support of the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson years.

As to which of us needs to "grow up," I respectfully suggest you look in a mirror: you are the one who stooped to flinging personal insult and misrepresentation.

[MintOreoCookie]

34. You are right. You did not call us names. I inferred your saying

that you did not want to debate with us as your saying we weren't smart enough to understand your points. Thus, I apologize for that.

I stand by my assessment that your prior post was your throwing a tantrum. I think tantrum throwers are immature, hence, telling you to grow up. Yeah, and I'll look in the mirror when I say that, but you need to be standing behind me so I can see you too.

Your point of view is out of the ordinary, in my opinion. Particularly, "For example I doubt I can ever convince you that what happened in New Orleans was a deliberate, predictable atrocity inflicted by specific, meticulously well-thought-out policies." How you can say that Katrina was deliberate is beyond me.

Good luck to you.

[newswolf56]

35. Not Katrina itself; it's ridiculous (and offensive) to even imply...

I said such a thing. But to doubt that the grotesque aftermath of Katrina is anything but genocide -- the fulfillment of Bush's own attitudes compounded by years of cunningly designed governmental policy -- is equally ridiculous. It is a matter of policy -- not accident -- the United States has the worst, most savage poverty in the industrial world. What happened in New Orleans in the wake of the hurricane was merely the manifestation of that selfsame policy: poverty meticulously designed as a flail to beat people into fearful, frenzied competition in an ever-more-impossible rate race, poverty maliciously intended to kill as many of the poor and disabled as possible -- and by those very deaths intensify its function as a flail. Not to mention -- since every such death is a reduction in social-service costs (and thus a triumph for the oligarchy) -- provide that much more money to reward the rich via tax cuts.

Sorry you were offended by my earlier withdrawal: I had a deadline to meet (all done now) and consciously hoped to avoid giving the offense you took. However -- and with all due respect -- a "tantrum" (in the context of a discussion such as this) occurs only when one spews forth word-salad and babbles incoherently: lots of caps and cusswords and typos and exclamation points. Mine is instead a knowing bitterness expressed politely yet with the cold logic of objective analysis -- or at least that is the goal toward which I strive. Rather a bit different from a "tantrum" -- unless of course you regard the notion of class-struggle as intellectual cole slaw.

[MintOreoCookie]

36. OMG, you need to lighten up. BTW, you are not capable of offending

me. I don't know you, and all I have read from you are very dramatic and exaggerated statements. Thus, I don't give your remarks much probative value.

A tantrum is defined as a fit of rage. In my personal opinion, you threw a tantrum above. You should consider what you said above--that you won't be able to convince me that you were not throwing a tantrum, and I won't be able to convince you that you threw one. When it comes down to it, it's a matter of opinion.

It's offensive to imply that you said such a thing? Is it? Where did you say that you were talking about the aftermath? I'm sorry you were offended by what I said.

Buh-bye.

[newswolf56]

37. Since you raised the issue, in every such discussion...

in which I have participated during the past week, whether on DU or off, "New Orleans" is linguistic shorthand not for the hurricane (which is called by its name Katrina) but for the horrific aftermath -- first the collapse of the levees (caused by Bush's malicious refusal to adequately fund the levee-improvement program), then all the subsequent tragedies that are even now unfolding: "New Orleans and its aftermath" (not "Katrina and its aftermath"). Moreover my fourth post includes the phrase, "the growing black/white schism over the causes" -- thereby making specific reference to the widely reported national debate over whether the aftermath of Katrina was accidental or deliberate, and if deliberate, whether it was inflicted by racism, class warfare or some combination of both. Indeed I never mentioned "Katrina" at all until I responded to your accusation; I seriously doubt anyone (else) misunderstood what I was talking about.

Undoubtedly I could have been more specific -- and surely would have been, had I known my use of the vernacular would be seized upon, especially by an editorial critic of your obvious stature. But you put words in my mouth -- words I neither said nor even implied: "(h)ow you can say that Katrina was deliberate is beyond me." That is deliberate misrepresentation, to which I responded accordingly.

I rest my case: apology accepted.

[MintOreoCookie]

39. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

[newswolf56]

40. And I for you:

At last, in our mutual sorrow for one another, something upon which we can agree.

[rniel]

26. He's playing it VERY smart

He's on FOX News. The people watching are mostly conservative. He is considering his audience. And he's trying to reach out to them.

So basically there's a time to get your democratic base pissed and riled up and there's a time to reach out to people who may have voted for Bush and are realizing it probably was a mistake.

[Arkana]

29. Actually I agree with Dean.

George Bush isn't a racist. Nor is he a homophobe. He doesn't care enough to be either--he is whatever his handlers tell him to be. When he leaves the White House, he will return to the hard drinking and not caring.

[Clarkie1]

30. Of course?

When anyone begins a statement with "Of course" it's a red flag for me.

There is no evidence that Bush is a racist, a homophobe, or hates the poor.

There is a lot of evidence he has little or no empathy for how his policies hurt them.

[LSK]

32. I think its more to do with class than race

We are all peons to Bush. We just are cannon fodder and we consume money and resources that his ilk should have.

[bklyncowgirl]

9. Nice to see he brought up the CRS report exonerating Blanco.

Good job. Now let's see if the other Democrats follow his lead.

[Adelante]

12. I'm glad Dean is going on FOX News

Bringing the Democratic message to those who need to hear it.

[paulk]

13. best part was bringing up FEMA

How it sucked under Bush one, was fixed by Clinton, then dismantled under Bush two.

This point needs to be hammered home. Bush the elder's mishandling of FEMA and Hurricane Andrew had a lot to do with his election loss in '92.

This is a really good interview from Dean. I like it.

[Wordie]

18. Recommended. Howard Dean is one of the best assets progressives have

going for ourselves right now. He is articulate, and he has access to MSM.

[madfloridian]

24. The video of his interview was 2nd most viewed for a lot of the day.

Just thought that was interesting. At Fox, for his interview to be one of the most viewed.

The interview, scroll down.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169326,00.html

It is up at Crooks and Liars as well.

[LSK]

31. video at crooksandliars.com n/t

[ladylibertee]

38. I am proud of Howard Dean for going into the snakes pit (FOX) and still

telling it like it is.You go Dean.:yourock: