The video of Howard Dean’s appearance on Hannity & Colmes last night is the second most-watched video at the entire Fox News site.
Fox’s partial transcript of Alan Colmes’ pre-taped interview of Dean (sans Hannity) is headlined:
Dean of Dems
Bold Democratic National Committee Chair takes on Bush, FEMA and Roberts
Update [2005-9-14 13:4:6 by susanhu]: Crooks and Liars has the video.
COLMES: Governor Dean, welcome. Thank you for being with us.
HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN: Thanks for having me back on.
COLMES: As a former governor, and you see what’s happened in New Orleans, in the aftermath of Katrina, what’s your assessment — and there’s a lot of finger-pointing going on. How do you assess the situation?
DEAN: Well, the situation has obviously been awful for the people of Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. You know, one thing Bill Clinton did really, really well was to have a strong Federal Emergency Management Agency [See yesterday’s story, “Another Flood, Another FEMA, Another Leadership Era], and the Bush administration just went back to turning it into a dumping ground for people who evidently didn’t have anything else to do, and it’s really too bad because now people have paid for that with their lives.
Howie in Seattle found more of the transcript via Shadow Blog for America:
COLMES: We had Bill Frist on our show last night and we played for him what you had said about him prioritizing getting rid of the death tax (sic)–750 billion dollars–and you said it’s a moral choice how do we spend that money, if we have that amount of money to spend. And he said it’s really not a choice. That we’re putting all of this money into reconstruction and so he kind of pooh-poohed the idea that there *is* a moral choice to be made.
DEAN: Well, there are three things you can do. You can run the biggest deficits in the history of the country which we’re doing right now, you can rebuild New Orleans, you can get rid of the estate tax.Now, the Republicans, including Senator Frist, chose to get rid of the estate tax, and evidently they say they’re going to rebuild New Orleans. Which means we’re going to have twice as high a deficit. When is this going to stop?
These people are completely irreponsible financially. We need to balance the budget *some day* in this country. And to spend 750 billion dollars giving a tax break to 20,000 American families, as opposed to the rest of the 280 million of them, I think is morally *wrong*.
We *did* have moral choices to make–we’ve made the wrong choices again and again and again, and we’re paying for this very dearly. Moral choices *not* just in terms of favoring getting rid of the estate tax over dealing with the deficit, but moral choices in terms of downgrading FEMA, not putting the money into levee reconstruction–this is the wrong moral choice. … continued below, including Dean’s views on Judge Roberts:
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.
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 disproporionately, 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.
Alan: Today, though, he did talk about the Civil Rights Act and of course how he believes in the 1965 act, and he talked about the right to privacy, and he did amend some of the things he had written back in 1981, and seemed to say the kind of things you would think Democrats would want to hear, stare decisis, the idea of established law as applied to Roe vs. Wade. Is that enough to say, “Look, maybe we should really look at this person–that he *might* be the appropriate judge?”
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.”
Read more at Shadow Blog for America.
I never realized that there were so many Dean groupies watching Fox. 😉
I’m thinking of Boran2’s wonderful diary last night about the cop who’s beginning to change his mind about Bush (it’s down the page further), it just might be that the Fox viewers who don’t have heads of cement on political issues might be struck by Dean’s frank talk.
Dean sure blew my mind the first times I heard him in 2003.
Imagine how he’d affect a staunch Republican who’s very unhappy with the Bush administration.
I think many people only know the distorted picture of Dean that was put out by the Republicans, by the media and by the other Democratic Party candidates for the nomination in 2003 – 2004.
A lot of people will take a second look if they get a chance to actually hear him speak.
What’s with this hemming and hawing? If a person is racist, they’re racist. One can’t be a little racist. You’re just racist. If the actions and efforts of W and Roberts end up aversely effecting “disproportionately, women, African Americans, and Hispanics” and they don’t see a problem with it, aren’t they racists?
I think it depends — and I think it’s ultimately only significant in that it helps to understand where your enemy’s mind is. If you whack the guy for a racist and he’s able to demonstrate that he’s NOT, you lose credibility — and in any case you want to be fighting directly against the real problems rather than wasting energy attacking something irrelevant.
There’s nothing in the neocon agenda that’s DIRECTLY anti Black, antilatino… It’s all economics and power. If you’re Black and wealthy and powerful, or Latino and wealthy and powerful, or either and of service to the wealthy and powerful, you’re cool. If you’re poor and white, or poor and Black, or poor and Latino, you’re scrod. Given the history of the US socio-economic system, of course, there’s a shortage of powerful wealthy Blacks and Latinos, and a plethora of poor ones, as compared to equivalent numbers of whites… so of COURSE the neocon economics is going to disproportionately screw over blacks and Latinos… but they’re not being targeted because of their race or ethnicity. They’re targeted because they’re poor.
And I suspect this is one reason Dean’s being cautious… because most moderate to swing Repubs don’t see themselves as racists and in fact see racism as the evil it is… it’s just they’re so used to swimming in the ocean of affluent anglo privilege that they don’t see how much “anglo” has to do with that “affluent” bit. And calling them racists will just confuse and anoy them at a time when we need them mad at the OTHER guys.
In a way it’s SOMEWHAT an indicator of progress… Last week I was talking with an elderly Black lady whose home was wiped out by Katrina, and she commented that in the long view it was interesting to her to notice that at least THIS time the white folks felt they had to defend themselves against charges of racism rather than using those charges as talking points for the next election. I’m not sure I’m old enough or wise enough to take THAT long a view, but she did have a point, I guess…
Progress takes WAY too damn long, but… we ARE winning, slowly.
Wow, that Shadow Blog for America seems like a pretty useful site. Seems like any time now it should be getting added to other sites’ blogrolls…
😉
Hmmm .. maybe so. (Snort.)
(Hey, everybody — if you have a blog that’s not listed, e-mail me. I know how to add you, and would be thrilled to do so!)
this was great! i would have missed it otherwise.
God knows I would have if FLoridaGal hadn’t alerted me to watch it last night — in the OpenThread down yonder — and had Howie in Seattle not sent out that link/excerpt this morning.
I mean, who in their right mind would voluntarily watch Hannity?