African American Republicans in the state are calling for the resignation of Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean for comments they say are racially insensitive. …

1: At a gathering of owners of media properties and lawyer association he could say:

Do you think the Republicans could get a gathering of Jews like this? Not unless they invited the Physics Department from some University in here.

Then he’d be a senator standing by the president at the inaugural?

…. but we have to call them on it, the MSM won’t do it on their own.

Now, imagine if Trent Lott said that…..

We invite rational people of all races into the fold and do not ask to see their pedigrees. We eschew identifying a person by his race, rather by his character (sound familiar?).

Moonbats, however, seem drawn to the opposition.

Dean has made clear his strategy for winning future elections. He emphasizes keeping energized the grass roots, the bloggers, the young and disaffected voters. The type of voters he attracted during his flameout. Conspicuously absent is rhetoric geared towards the Democrats traditional voters, voters who weren’t particular thrilled with John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Dean’s history with African Americans is negligible at best. In a Slate interview, he boasted proudly that he had “two African-American roommates” during his freshman year at Yale, (that he requested no doubt!) which corresponds in his mind to a “special relationship with the African-American community.” This “special relationship” amounted to Dean not having any African-Americans or Latinos serve in his Cabinet during his governorship. Only a limousine liberal, isolated and growing up on Park Avenue and in the Hamptons, would think it amusing to joke to a gathering of African Americans, that the only way Republicans would have a gathering of similar size would be to “invite the hotel staff.” Dean’s focus on red states and the west, says the party can take for granted African Americans while it attempts to reach out. Some things never change.

Michael (lying fat slob) Moore, in 9/11, cited Sen. Tim Johnson, a South Dakota Democrat, as the only member of Congress with a child deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Factcheck: according to
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-06-congress-kids-war_x.htm
Fewer than one-third of the 535 members of Congress have served in the military, compared with 77% in 1977. The end of the draft in 1973 is most often cited for the declining number of veterans in Congress. It also helps explain why so few children of lawmakers serve in uniform.

For those who have, or are about, to serve in Iraq.
On the Republican side:
• Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, member of the House Armed Services Committee. His son Capt. Alan Wilson, 31, an Army National Guard intelligence officer in Iraq.
• Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, the committee’s powerful chairman. His son, Marine 1st Lt. Duncan Duane Hunter, 27, was an artillery officer during the first battle of Fallujah.
• Rep. Todd Akin, Missouri Republican, member of the House Armed Services Committee. His son Perry, 25, is a Marine combat engineer who is expected to deploy to central Iraq soon.
• Rep. John Kline, Minnesota Republican, member of the House Armed Services Committee. Maj. John Daniel Kline, 34, is an Army Black Hawk helicopter pilot whose 101st Airborne Division battalion is expected to be sent to Iraq next fall.
• Rep. Jim Saxton, New Jersey Republican, member of the House Armed Services Committee. His nephew, a Marine rifleman, recently served seven months in Iraq.

For statistical purposes, let’s say Kline and Saxton equalize each other and we’ll call it 5 sons
For the Republicans, we have 55 Senators & 232 Representatives = 287: Percentage of Iraqi veteran fortunate sons of Republicans is 0.017%

For the Democrat side:
• Sen. Tim Johnson, South Dakota Democrat. His son, Army Staff Sgt. Brooks Johnson, 32, served two infantry tours in Iraq, including the initial invasion from Kuwait to Baghdad.

For the Democrats, we have 45 Senators & 203 Representatives = 248: Percentage of Iraqi veteran fortunate sons of Democrats is 0.004%

Total congressional percentage is 0.009%. Democrats aren’t pulling their weight, yet they scream loudest about their concerns for our sons and daughters. Right!

But wait, we have other congressional sons in the military:
• Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado Republican. Her son is an enlisted sailor on a submarine tender in the Mediterranean.
• Sen. Republican Kit Missouri Republican. His son Sam is training to be a Marine infantry officer.
• Rep. Ike Skelton, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, whose namesake son is a Navy public affairs officer in Japan.
• Sen. Joseph Biden, Delaware Democrat. His son, Joseph III, is a judge advocate in the Delaware Army National Guard.
Total Percentage of Republican fortunate sons is 0.024%
Total Percentage of Democrat fortunate sons is 0.012%
Total Percentage of Congressional fortunate sons is 0.019%

Furthermore, the fact that we have 6 members of the Armed Services committee means that parental concerns are well represented. Unless you believe that Republicans eat their young, nevermind that Dems are pretty much known to favor aborting theirs.

According to the CIA Factbook (Google it), updated 10 Feb 05, we have the following
0-14 years: 20.80% (male 31,122,974 female 29,713,748) 60,836,722
15-64 years: 66.90% (male 97,756,380 female 98,183,309) 195,939,689
65+ years 12.40% (male 15,078,204 female 21,172,956) 36,251,160
For total population of 293,027,571

So let’s do some extrapolating to find some generous parental #s
15-39 would be approximately 87,547,521
38-64 would be approximately 108,392,168
108,392,168 (38-64)+ 36,251,160 (65+) = 144,643,328 potental parental units

With all the rotations and what not, let’s say that 1,000,000 soldiers have served at one time or another, that would give us approximately .013% of all American parents have had their sons & daughters serve in Afghanistan/Iraq. Sounds to me like the statement that a greater % of Congressional parents have their children at risk than the rest of America is no hyperbole.

Sorry to bust blow away MM’s smoke & mirrors. If you paid to see 9/11, you should demand a refund for being bamboozled.

–That’s right, Dr. Dean. And if Condi and Colin Powell walked in, that would be two more blacks than you ever appointed to your Vermont cabinet.

Dean’s recent comments highlight three things:
1. The GOP post-1968 Sunbelt coalition was based on race–or more exactly (as Kevin Phillips put it), it was a reaction by whites against the perception that the Democratic party had moved from supporting civil rights for blacks to supporting special privileges. For the last generation the polls have been fairly constant: GOP gets about 60% of the whites; Dems about 90% of the blacks. The Democrats only win the White House with a self-proclaimed south Georgia redneck (Jimmy Carter), or poor white trash from Arkansas who proves he can diss Sister Souljah (Clinton).

2. The Democratic party no longer cares about blacks–in any meaningful sense. The days of civil rights are gone: the new Democratic leadership is passionate about gay marriage, abortion rights, and opposition to the war on terror; the old passion for civil rights and the problems in the cities has burned down to a low dull flame.

3. The GOP has an opportunity: if W and the GOP will talk about black peoples’ problems, they have an opportunity to get black peoples’ votes.

Condi 2008?

As far as Dean’s comment? To me it was as much of a faux pas as Lott’s, and Dr. Dean will receive the same amount of criticism from me – not much (although I did laugh at him when I heard about it).