George Dale Puts Foot In Mouth on Air

To continue...after listening to it, I don't think there's much to defend. Maybe this speaks to some assumptions within the MS Democratic party that really need to be reconsidered. My gut reaction is that Mr. Dale needs to get out more.

I totally agree--although good could come out of this if it forces an honest and the Democratic Party to try to stop being fake Republicans. Haven't they figured out that the New GOP has white conservatives pretty much sown up, at least the extreme ones?

Honestly, though, I haven't had time to listen to it, yet. ;-) So I won't say more until I get to it. Todd wasn't impressed, though.

Thanks, MC, for sending it along, even if your delivery was less than gentlemenly. ;-)

Of course Todd and the rest of your crowd wasn't impressed. That completely proves my point. This is atleast as harsh as what Trent Lott (by the way, I'm not a fan) said about the Dixiecrats. But, when it's Democrats that say it, you just sweep it under the rug after a few weak excuses. Pothetic. I'm tired of trying to get a simple point across to such dense ideologues. You all can get back to spreading propaganda and your witch hunting. I'm finished and not suprised by your lack concern by this exposing interview. Don't bother responding for my sake as I can't take much more spinning and bs. Sorry for sounding harsh but I figured the staff of the harshest writing little newspaper around could handle it. Guess not, I forgot you can launch vicious attacks but your sensitive bleeding hearts are offended quite easily.

Hmmm, I just discovered this little bombshell on Magnolia Reports (I never listen to talk radio) and was thinking about writing a little editorial entitled "Dixiecrats Expose Themselves" or maybe just "Can George Dale say 'Duuuuuhhhmb' " (sensationalism, just exploit it). :-)

I came in here to see if anyone else had found this little goodie, and here is MC going off (the deep end).

MC, let me make you an offer. Someone said not to feed the troll, but I'm inviting you to dinner on my page - if you have the intestinal fortitude. Here's the rules (same as they have always been, so don't worry, I didn't make them up just for you): "Write and complain about MP, about someone or somebody else; if it's well written and brief, has a verifiable name and address with a phone number and/or email address, we'll print it. Submit it here: "

I won't put your name on the article unless you give me permission (in other words, if you're a wuss, I'll leave your name off as long as *I* can verify it).

I might add a little comments section for the public and/or write a "disclaimer" to go with it, but I'll provide you the stage if you want to run thru your act.

By the way, most of us know well that there is a large political party in Mississippi comprised of mostly white males who call themselves either Republicans or Democrats, but are basically one and the same. A Democrat in name only is a Dixiecrat in my book. The Democratic Party in Mississippi is like Eve - it has two faces - a progressive face and a Dixiecrat face.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are much more consistent (which wouldn't be a bad thing if they weren't so consistently blind to the needs of ordinary people). Unfortunately, they seem to only have eyes for big business. Which leads into the other big mistake that George Dale made... if anyone noticed.

I absolutely agree with you C.W.
As I said in the other blog on 2 party politics in general....

They do & say whatever it takes to get the vote. Both sides say ONLY enough so as the masses of voters can read what they can out of it, and stay under the radar enough so the other side does little against you. If your at a labor rally, you're pro-labor, you're at a whorehouse, you're a......

Keep tradition alive = don't rock the boat = toe the line = do only and exactly what it takes to get (re)elected = a justification for what they do or don't do = do as little as possible = a need for "real" change in all politics in this country

Here's an interesting speculation.....at the risk of giving certain people the wrong idea (but i doubt this will happen, given that the Religious Right has a lot of pull in the Republican Party -- and even among the Dixiecrats too).

Think about what would happen if the Cultural Rightwingers split off from the state Republican party and formed The Heritage Party...it's motto being "For God, Country, and Tradition" (for argument's sake, let's suppose that "tradition" truly has nothing to do with race, but rather with promoting lifestyles that would earn both Falwell's and Robertson's seal of approval).

Imagine the three-ring circus in Mississippi's politics (and Texas' for that matter) if THAT ever came to pass!!!

Of course Todd and the rest of your crowd wasn't impressed. That completely proves my point. This is atleast as harsh as what Trent Lott (by the way, I'm not a fan) said about the Dixiecrats. But, when it's Democrats that say it, you just sweep it under the rug after a few weak excuses. Pothetic.

You really think he/she's going to answer, Todd? I believe she/he thinks she/he's been called out (when I offered him/her the space to editorialize). His/her anonymity didn't seem quite as ironclad to him/her, even though I promised to keep his/her identity under wraps (as long as I could verify this is a person over the age of majority). I don't think MC trusts me (but that's only because he/she doesn't know how strictly I keep my word).

Herman, your comment made me laugh hysterically. :-)

And, Philip, can I take your scenario in a different direction? What would happen if all the Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party and all the progressives, liberals, blacks, greenies, hispanics and other minorities (except for the ones who wanted to be Republicans) moved to another party? How unbalanced do you think it would end up (you being Mr. Statistic)? And, how would it change the dynamics, do you think, if everyone was fairly clearly 'out of the closet' politically, rather than Democratic in name only, as many are now?

Just an interesting thing to ponder, like your cultural rightwinger idea (I'd be tempted to say they all fit fairly neatly into the Republican Party as it is at the present, but I know a lot of folks like that who agree with a lot of my views. Or is it the other way around? :-)

CW,

At least for a while, I'd say it'd be like Western Europe - coalition government, and that's assuming the state constitution permits something like this through its silence. Of course the supreme court AND THE Supreme Court will probably step over some issue.

Even if my cultural rightist Heritage Party (again, assume no racist rightwingism) eschews racism, they will still pull in a lot of racist support I'm afraid (unless the Old Fashioned Dixiecrats form their own party too). That will end up with an overwhelmingly minority Democratic Party and what's left of the Republican Party will lose much of its cultural conservatism and focus on representing business interests. This rump Republican Party might actually end up calling for larger education budgets - given that businesses need high quality people to work for them.

But....the Religious Right is too (or Republi-jelcals) are too entrenched in the party to simply leave. Would YOU leave a party that was representing YOUR interests?

All this is to be taken with a grain of salt, though.

Naturally it's to be taken with a grain of salt - this is just for the fun of wild speculation.

I didn't understand what you were saying the state or national Supreme Court would step in on, though. My postulation was people deciding to move to other parties than the one they belong to now. Where would the supremes come into the picture?

Philip:

In a way you're describing Paul Ray's New Political Compass that I wrote about a while back. The idea is that instead of a spectrum from left to right, we might actually have a politics in this country that could be described as compass points. In the E is the Liberal Left; in the W is the Religious Right, in the S is the Corporate Conservative and in the N is the New Progressive. When looked at as a sort of quadrant system instead of simply a flat line, you can get a much stronger sense of how Americans actually feel about certain issues. For instance:

- SW -- George W. Bush, a religious and corporate conservative
- NW -- Jimmy Carter, a progressive religious conservative
- NE -- Ralph Nader, a (presumably) anti-religious, anti-corporate progressive
- SE -- George Soros, a left-liberal, corporate conservative

And so on. That's imperfect, perhaps, but it's food for thought. The idea that Ray is putting forth is that there is an amorphous New Progressive out there who is not particularly anti-traditional values and can be rather spiritual, but is also concerned about the environment, anti-nuclear, anti-globalization, worker rights and so on. In other words, someone with heartland American values that aren't co-opted by corporate interests.

If that got out, it might populate your Heritage Party, or it might populate some sort of New Progressive Coalition that put Greens and Heritage and Labor together against the corporate (Republican?) core.

Hey all, this is a *very* important discussion. Keep it going. I'd love to weigh in more when this @#$% issue goes out. ;-)

BTW, I thought The Clarion-Ledger's map about reds-blues-pinks-light blues was intriguing this week. I see some hope there.

Lord, if we could get the corporate media talking more about gradations along the spectrum, or even Todd's beloved compass (which I like, too), we could get somewhere perhaps.

The locals didn't think of it, it seems. They ran a piece from The Washington Post about voters who reject both parties.

Not saying it's perfect, but it's brain fodder. Talk among yourselves.

The context of the quote was that the Dems need more white people.

you know what? they do.

Dale went on to say that the GOP needs to bring in more black people. that's true too. Does a white chair do that? quite possibly. I think his comments reflect an honest (to him) view of his party and what one of the solutions would be. i don't think it is racist.

now, it isn't pretty, but you know what? politics isn't pretty. right or wrong, the democrats take a LONG hard look at race. they have to do this and this street goes both ways. they have to look at what things court black AND white voters. anyone that believes otherwise is lying to themselves.

jp, I see your point. But let's bring it back to what Dale actually said...the problem is letting pass the suggestion that somehow a white chairman is necessary to reach out to white voters. The MS Dems should get a *platform* and run on *issues*, and not be quite so obsessed with their chase after their perception of what appeals to "conservative" voters. If Dowdy is the best man for the job, so be it. But why air the hint that there was a race-based litmus test? That's just ignorant.

I think Dale was stupid to say what he said, but, beyond that -- which may have been just a bad mistake -- I think it betrays a premise beneath the comment that is also somewhat flawed. (And it's also stupid to say the GOP needs to reach out to African Americans; that's not his place and it's apologist.)

The skin color of the chair isn't nearly as important as the substance of the Dem's (potential and real) differences with the GOP. If they'd sit down and hammer out some principled positions (and then raise some money and put together some clever marketing, GOTV and grassroots excitement) I think the demographics might take care of themselves.

Yes, and stop scrapping for that white, rural chick in Kemper County, as I like to call that ideal conservative voter they all want. Face it, the GOP has her vote, and her husband's. It's time that Mississippi Democrats, and the national ones, remake themselves into a party that more people want to vote for, rather than running defensive "see-we're-almost-Republican" campaigns. The GOP, due its pandering to the radical right, has left the middle wide open for the Democrats, if they could find the balls to step up and take it back. Hint: You might offend that rural chick along the way. So what? (Or, you might convince her to vote against her husband next time, especially if she or her momma is on Medicaid.)

I personally would like to see the Mississippi Democrats collapse and the Greens and indies flourish. The Democrats of Mississippi have notoriously shown they are nothing more than liberal Republicans in my opinion.

I'd support the first party to recognize that gay people do, in fact, live here and a large number include families with children. I'd also support the first party that goes out of their way to take care of our seniors as if they were their own grand parents.

Ahhh, touche', todds. The last time I looked on here (June 29), there didn't seem to be much talk of this. I am obviously a Republican and thought this should be discussed considering how much the Republicans are accused of being racsist in this publication. It seemed like a bit of a double standard at the time. But today, I was happy to see it high up on your web page.

And CW, thanks but no thanks on the offer and priveledge of getting an opinion piece on your website. Nice try baiting me though... ex. calling me a "wuss" if I don't put my real name. I have to admit, however, I did laugh when I read your posts that implied I was dodgning you. Ever think just maybe that I don't check this board every day? I have put my "whole" name on emails that I've written to the JFP. Anonymity is not an issue but I do have limits on how much time I can waste.

MC, there is a difference between accusing Republicans of being racist and of their using racist codes for political gain. The latter, as a party, they undoubtedly do. That doesn't mean every individual Republican is a racist or uses racist code, although I would encourage those who don't believe in race-pandering to speak out against the members of their party that do, so it doesn't make them all appear racist--and the state, as a whole. It's really a tired and dated strategy--and it's certainly not one that the Democrats ought to emulate.

Otherwise, you came on here Tuesday, June 29, all accusatory and conspiratorial, accusing the JFP of sweeping things under rugs, because I hadn't made a big hoopla over an e-mail you sent me at 5 p.m. Monday, June 28, when I was on press deadline. Your e-mail, entitled "Great Idea for a Cover Story!" read as such:

Just wondering what you thought about the following attachment. This is Insurance Commissioner George Dale on Supertalk radio. He blatantly states that the MS Dem. Party was looking for someone "white" to head up the party. It's pretty unbelievable and is definetely worth a cover story b/c it truly is exposing how racism is running rampant in the Democratic Party.

Your point seemed to be, more than to lambaste Dale, to "expose" how the JFP doesn't care about racists in the Democratic Party because I hadn't killed the cover story that we were taking to the printer that night and replaced it with a big expose about George Dale by Tuesday mid-day. <grin>

That, mc, is plain silly. As you can see, and from the current issue, that just hit the stands, we think that Dale's comments are ignorant and worth discussing, even if I hadn't read all my e-mail by the time you ripped me a new one for it. And you shown very little understanding of both the print and online versions of the JFP to even assume that we aren't willing to criticize Democrats. As I told you in e-mail when you made similar accusations of me a while back, I am not a Democrat, and they have really pissed me off of late. And if you don't skip every third line, you'll see that criticism show up often in the JFP. Now, if you hadn't noticed, the folks in power right now both in the U.S. and in the state are far-right Republicans. So, yes, they likely will get more ink at the moment by virtue of the fact that they're doing more crap.

So, how about losing the gotcha attitude and just talking about issues here in a civil way? I really am done feeding your troll.

Todd, I must have missed the New Political Compass the first time around. I agree with Ray about this New Progressive, as you describe it, and feel an affinity with the description, except that I don't feel too amorphous. Sometimes when I think about something, a phrase from some song or another comes to mind. Right now it's "Dreaming, I keep right on dreaming, 'til my dreaming comes true...."

Speaking of dreaming, wouldn't it be interesting if we could just take race out of the equasion and see what we ended up with? Geez, might not be half as hard to pick thru the platforms.

JP!, I do understand what you're saying about the practical political view that Dale was taking, and it's a shame that it's like this in Mississippi still - a Democratic party to a large extent divided because of color and a Republican party to a large extent united against color (certainly looks that way to me, anyhow). Was still not a smart thing for him to say. I can still dream Todd's dream about people voting on substance rather than skin color, and I know that dream's going to come true someday (if not now, when?)

MC, I am so gratified to have given you a laugh, and I thank you for the return chuckle - it's all good for the mental health. I have to ask a question about that last sentence in your post, though. "Anonymity is not an issue but I do have limits on how much time I can waste," you said. Does that mean that being anonymous wastes less of your time than being outfront? (Just couldn't resist that one). ;-)

"Dream Todd's dream" ;-) I like that.

I understand JP's point, too--in fact, we've talked about it in person before--but I simply have to reject the "conventional wisdom" that you have to be ultra conservative in Mississippi, even if you're a Democrat. Yes, you do if you're all fighting over that same pool of voters. But it's a catch-22: we're never going to build a wider voting base for anyone if both parties simply fight over the same pool. And, I think with Barbour in control, there will much less success for conservative Democrats. We're already seeing that in the Legislature. His political machine has no patience for any Democrat, as far as I can tell. I think the rulebook has to be changed.

That doesn't mean that, suddenly, we need a bunch of radical left-wingers running around, either. But that state Democratic platform can--how can I say this nicely?--kiss my butt. I'm sure not going to sign onto the Democratic Party and agree to a Republican platform in disguise. We deserve better.

Todd,

I definitely remember the political compass, and its an enormous improvement over the traditional linear left-right paradigm. You probably caught this as you read the article, but strictly speaking, even "compass" is misleading in a way. Just as left-right can only identifies which "half" you are in, the compass describes only which quadrant you are in. It works best if you think of it as a chart where you can move to any position on the compass face, rather than a needle whose point can only fall somewhere along the edge of that compass (thereby giving the impression of being WAY out). What prevents someone from being a bit of NW and SE at the same time? A 5th reference point needs to be added - the swivel point (or whatever you call the little metal shaft on which the needle turns)

I realize they needed a catch-phrase to encapsule the idea they are getting across, and "compass" seemed as good as any, but I thought this prudent to bring up. Simple models have nasty ways of trapping us in assumptions.

BTW, a cube would be much better. There's social issues, economic issues, and foreign policy issues.

But then you'd need to add others I suppose, and we'd have a political hypercube*. Unfortunately we live in only three dimensions, so we have to accept that all graphic depictions of political positions will be simplistic

*hypercube - a four-dimensional object whose sides are all at right angles to each other. Think of it this way. Straight lines have one dimension, squares have two, cubes have three....and hypercubes have more than four. There can be, for example, 7-D hypercubes too.

Good point, Philip. Ultimately, the most important point is that we need choices, and that is not served by always being split into two sides, pick one. It certainly is serving the U.S. terribly right now: how many people do you know who are scared to death of being called "liberal" (being that it's been turned into a dirty word by a party that not even consistently "conservative"), but who are not nearly as radical as the Bush administration. So they just tune out and don't vote, allowing the cycle to continue. I hear this EVERY single day from people in their teens and 20s: we don't like Bush, but there is no one who represents us. Sometimes, it's clear they haven't really investigated the options, and what someone like Kerry stands for, issue wise, and sometimes it's clear that they are fully aware that *no one* is talking about what matters to them. They don't vote; why should the candidates talk to them? Mississippi is Bush country; why should a progressive bother to campaign here? And so on, and so on.

It serves the status quo very well to convince people that they either adhere to the status quo or they are weird and radical, when in fact the people running the country right now are the most radical in my memory, from either side of the, er, spectrum. (Sorry to be linear, Philip and Todd.)

But don't both the two-party system and the electoral college support this either-or system? And how in hell can we change it when the folks who would have to change it got there due to the system? Blame James Wilson. Of course, those guys could not have anticipated (a) the elitist disparities created when women and minorities later got the (true) right to vote and the (b) devastating impact of corporate campaign donations on the system. It feels to me like the system is reaching the breaking point -- of course, that was apparent in the 2000 election -- but how do you change it?

MORE RAMBLING:
This is the point where Nader intrigues and confounds me. Listening to him speak, he makes so much populist sense, but I'm a pragmatist and believe that you can only fix the system from within. And I don't want the whole thing to crumble around us as he seems to -- which I fear will indeed happen with Bush's re-election, which is probably why Nader wants to help him win -- so we can rebuild it. But the free enterprise system, which I believe in wholeheartedly, is not even getting a chance to work, thanks to all the corporate welfare and tinkering with the legal system. The whole checks-and-balances thing makes so much sense, but it can't work when megla-corporations can buy out everything, squish the competition by playing unfair, and buy their way past what should be the cost of running bad businesses (like costly lawsuits when you hurt people). And it sure can't work when corporate media refuse to even tell the American people the truth about our own country and the political machinations of its leaders, regardless of party.

I wish I could be a libertarian (read Lawrence Silver's new JFP column, BTW, when I get it posted), but I just don't believe in anyone's willingness to self-regulate anymore. There's been too much tinkering with the system that has throw it out of whack. Everyone cheats, so everyone else has to. Todd calls these mega-corporations "amoral," not immoral, and I think he has a point. They get too large for individuals who care about safety and people to have any real impact. It's as if they turn into monster-machines that, in turn, turn good people into bad, a la Enron and WorldCom. (Cue the "2001" music.)

Sorry, I'm just airing frustrations and rambling without purpose. But I sure am open to ideas on how to fix this thing from within. I don't believe in sitting back and saying, "well, that's just the way it is." Screw that. The idea behind this country is too great to just let it be smothered by corporate greed. But more people have to participate if we're going to be a beacon of freedom and individualism.

Sorry, I got a bit away from George Dale's comments -- but I am incredibly frustrated with the Democratic mindset that blindly follows the right to the right and leaves more and more people behind as it goes. Ultimately, we need new blood in politics in Mississippi. New, energetic blood that's ready to challenge conventions of whatever party.

Who out there is going to be our future? Step up!

And, Philip, you and your hypercubes are out of control! ;-D

Actually, I think that at this point in time a fair number of people would vote for a candidate who was both honest and competent. The bar is set pretty low right now, at least for politicians.

Also, there are some people who just pick *ONE* issue, and vote that - abortion, gay rights, military spending, etc. They won't even fit on a hypercube, though I love the idea. Maybe we can get Edward Tufte (http://www.edwardtufte.com) to find a way to display the range of options.

Agreed: wedge issues are the worst. Go ahead, and send all our manufacturing jobs to China, as long as you bash gays now and again.

Donna: "Your point seemed to be, more than to lambaste Dale, to "expose" how the JFP doesn't care about racists in the Democratic Party because I hadn't killed the cover story that we were taking to the printer that night and replaced it with a big expose about George Dale by Tuesday mid-day. <grin>"

No kidding that my point was to show how biased you are. It only took a week or so for you to put it up on top of the website. I believe you did, however, kill the cover story that you were taking to the printer and replace it when Lott made the insane comment re: Thurman and the Dixiecrats. Did you not? Dales comment pertained to Top Dems (plural) making a blatant rascist decision-- Hiring a guy as long as he met one of the major credentials... that of course being white.

I've got to get off these left wing websites. I'm tired of being a "troll"... whatever that is. <frown>

Donna's biased!?!? Who knew? It's so hard to tell what her opinions are on things. Thanks for pointing that out mc.

mc, I often put newsblogs in Noise once they start getting lots of comments. That's part of the point of it as regular readers here know.

And you are right: We did hold a story for a week to put the Lott/history of the Dixiecrats on the front page way back when Lott was plastered all over the national media, but with little background on the flap here in Mississippi ... and it was one of our most popular issues to date. I think we have five copies of it left. A little editorial secret: I had written much of that particular history after months of research when I was in graduate school, so it was easy to do.

Call it bias, guy; I don't care. All media is biased. I never pretend to be objective; that's disingenuous. What we are is an *alternative*--which means that we strive to do things that other media don't do, no matter who/where that strikes home.

The simple truth is I was not in a position to drop everything I was doing in response to an e-mail from you--had my editorial judgment told me that I should have--and I remind you that your past e-mails haven't always been the most, shall we say, accurate, and they have been nasty and accusatory and under-considered (remember chiding me for not supporting Kerry since I wasn't supporting Bush? Your reasoning was, I believe, that I must love Democrats (not) since I don't like the current Republican adminstration. Huh?). You're lucky I even opened this one from you with your track record. I get hundreds of e-mails a day, and have some e-mails backed up for months now (5,252 in my inbox right now), and your past screeching didn't exactly bump yours to the top of the list.

All that said, when we got to looking at the Dale link -- the next day-- we posted it and then put it in the next issue. No, not on the cover, but the tidbit alone was a little slight for the cover. ;-) Although, you may well see a cover story in the future dealing with the issues underlying it, but I assure you it will take longer than overnight to write it. If you'd stop being so damned obstinate, we might even interview you for it! I don't quite see the parallel you're drawing between Lott's comments and Dale's, but it'd be interesting to explore. And I think I said already that I appreciate your sending the link.

Just take a breath and discuss, mc. Your anger is smothering anything compelling you might want to say here. Otherwise, if all you're going to do is try to pick fights, I'll have to ask you to move on, as I have other people who show up here simply to disrupt. Your choice.

Tee hee, Kate. I always like the, "I can prove that you're not a conservative!" approach as well. Uh, very observant.

Donna: "Just take a breath and discuss, mc. Your anger is smothering anything compelling you might want to say here."

I assure you, I am not angy at all. I usually am laughing when I write this stuff. I know I come off sounding like I'm screaming at the computer to you, but I assure you I'm smiling.

I promise this is the last post EVER. The troll must go play some D&D;now.

Glad you're smiling, mc. And watch for errant screen doors. ;-)

OK, that was rude, and I apologize. But, now that mc has left us for good and since he's not publicly identified, I'm going to use him to make a point. I've heard rumors that we try to limit dialogue on this site--meaning block accounts--to commentary that the monolithic "we" agree with. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have kicked exactly two commenters (IP addresses) off this site since we started requiring membership--which we did because it was turning into a personal-attack board and driving people off. The two I kicked off was one who had indulged in the personal attacks in the past, but who I was going to allow to register and comment as long as he didn't continue. However, he signed on with fake addresses and started spamming all the members under the fake name. I blocked his IP. The other one is someone who could not show up on the site without flinging nastiness at everyone in site with every word. Gone. And I have to say, since we required membership, our page views, members and visits have skyrocketed.

I encourage people--conservatives, Libertarians, Greens, whomever--to read these boards and actually see how often individual people have different takes on issues. If you're a person who believes that discussion is about hurling insults and screeching without anyone ever responding to you, then maybe civil discussion doesn't appeal to you, and you don't belong here. But if you're someone who wants to come on and disagree with a point, share a different set of facts, challenge other bloggers, do it. Just be civil, and if you get pissy, which we all do sometimes, apologize. We're not going to kick you off unless you're a "troll" -- someone who is just trying to stir up trouble and engage in ad hominem attacks (calling everyone else here "dense ideologues" qualifies). And we don't even kick off folks who come in swinging like that immediately (as you can see; there's really been one that fits that category),but we will ask you to engage in civil dialogue in order to stay.

So, don't believe the rumors, and please share your thoughts on the boards.

Well, it seems that Magnolia Report has decided to post a link to something on the JFP site -- this blog thread. After all the stories, columns, news alerts and such we've done about Medicaid, tort reform, politics, the F9/11 campaign and so on, this is what they post! Funny, and telling about their agenda. Only certain things can get through the filter, eh?

While their readers are here, they might check out our tort-reform archive, where a few different facts managed to get through the filter:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=P3144_0_3_0_C

We also point Magnolia Report readers to City Buzz in the print edition this week, which talks about the Dale incident:

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=3314_0_4_0_C

We can cure this whole mess with George Dale. Vote Randy G. (Bubba) Pierce in '07 for Insurance Commissioner!!! Send "Bubba" to Jackson, & send George HOME!!!!!

Hey, Donna, I'm ready to chunk the electoral college (or is that collage?). Been ready for about 40 years. I'm not sure that's what you were saying, but I definately am.

As far as the Magnolia Report, if you'd just rename this the "Republican National Party" website or the "Haley Barbour" website, he'd link you all the time. Or maybe you could do some *real* one-sided reporting (lean as far to the right as possible, no standing straight or trying to stay in the middle, or heaven forbid, no headtilt to the left.)

From Mississippi Link this week:

Saying that the Mississippi Democratic Party needed to retain white leadership in order to attract white voters was not meant to be racist, said Insurance Commissioner George Dale. Instead, he said, it was the truth.

ìI am at the point in my life where I really donít care what anybody says,î said Dale. ìI pretty well think what I think. I have had comments from close personal friends of mine who said, ëyou shouldnít have said it that way; why did you say that?íî said Dale. ìI said because we had discussed that in meetings. So why be secretive of what you said? Say it. If people think itís racist, then thatís their opinion. There was not racist intent in me saying that statement, but I still stand by the statement I made.î

In an interview last month on Supertalk WFMN-FM in Jackson, Dale said that Democrats need to keep a white chairman ìto attract back the white voters that weíve lost that have gone elsewhere.î

Read entire piece

Well, I'm glad he cleared that up.

My guess is that George Dale may have gotten to the point in his life where he needs to asked by the MS Dems that he no longer be a spokesman for the party.

- Todd

It does certainly sell potential white Democrats in Mississippi short to say they won't be attracted to a party led by a black chairman. One has to wonder, if that is true, if this party stands for what it says it does. Or, as they seem bent on trying to prove, are they simply a faux-Republican Party, with built-in racism and all? I hope not, but why should white progressives simply believe this by default, if folks like Dale are going around speaking this "truth"? It sounds like the "truth" is the problem.

If there's anything I get sick of is all the beliefs that racism is just reality, deal with it. And then the same people will tell you not to talk about race so much. Ahem.

The Democratic Party has a wonderful opportunity RIGHT NOW (thanks to Barbour's recent idiocies, not to mention that of the national GOP) to step up and be bold. Will it?

This is one of these moments when I'm embarrassed to live in MS. It's provincialism (with a healthy dose of stupid racism, just for good measure) to think that the only way to attract voters is through the race of the leadership. Gag. Go live in northern California, where democrats actually come in all ethnicities - as do republicans and libertarians and greens and so forth and so on.

I see your point, Kate, but I also am kind of glad it happened. We need to air this crap out, so people can see it for what it is. If you never talk about race, you often don't know if your best friend is racist. Or, you don't know if the Democratic Party of Mississippi is still living in the past. I talk to too many Democrats here who believe the party can't risk alienating ultra-conservatives or, frankly, racists (although they don't always say that outright as Dale did, which in a way I give him a smidgeon of credit for admitting). Now, could someone tell me the different between the Democratic and Republican parties? And, if you can't, don't start whining because you're losing membership. And the idea that you're going to somehow increase that membership by finding a white guy to lead the party is absurd. Now a white guy might be able to lead the party -- but it'd better be based on more than silly old-fashioned assumptions about Mississippians. How about giving us a chance to prove that we're more than the stereotype??? I truly believe that Mississippians are our own worst enemies. We get mad because "outsiders" assume the worst about us -- all the while, it's usually Mississippians telling themselves that Mississippians are ignorant and racist, and the parties playing to our worst instincts. Look at the crap on the Mississippi Republican Party site right now (http://www.msgop.org) or anything Barbour said during his campaign: these people have contempt for Mississippians, and someday we're going to, as a whole, come together and show these idiots to the door -- no matter what party they call themselves. Screw conventional wisdom; I believe Mississippians are a whole lot smarter than either party gives us credit for. It just so happens that a lot of those folks don't bother to vote for people who treat them like idiots. See the cycle?

George Dale's endorsement of Bush yesterday is intriguing, if not particularly surprising. But it does beg the question of whether his offensive comments above were intended to make the Mississippi Democratic Party look bad, especially as it seems to be trying to modernize itself a bit. Dale, who seems to be rather Dixiecratic, is certainly one of those old-style Dems who probably won't hanker to the type of party that Wayne Dowdy describes to the JFP in this issue.

At the very least, it sure gives the Dems a way to say that such race-baiting is coming from a man who endorses Bush, and perhaps the tired old southern strategy. They should probably be thankful that he endorsed Bush.