November 20, 2003
THIS IS JUST DUMB
Attack Geography. Hey, buddy, who do you think you're calling "bucolic"? (Michael Kinsley, Slate, 11/20/03)
Republicans have had a talent for geographical chauvinism since Nixon's southern strategy. Wherever a Democratic candidate happens to be from, that place turns out to be isolated and unrepresentative and not part of the real America. They are having a good time at the moment dissing Vermont, home of former Gov. Howard Dean. It's way up there in the Northeast somewhere. (Yeah, not too far south of the Bush family hangout in Maine.) It doesn't have any black people. Its best-known product is some hippie ice cream. Worst of all, it's (gasp!) "bucolic." . . .I suppose you have to give Kinsley credit for getting a whole column out of Republicans making fun of New England and Arkansas, and it might indicate that things are going pretty well for the administration. But, truth to tell, I haven't seen any Republicans making fun of Vermont. That seems to be coming mostly from Democrats, who believe that not having blacks in his state makes Governor Dean ineligible for the presidency.In 1988, Republicans painted Massachusetts as a foreign country and Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis as an elitist, compared with that po' boy from Texas, the elder George Bush. Massachusetts, to its credit, is a bit south of Vermont. On the other hand, it is full of universities. Need we say more?
When Bill Clinton emerged as Democratic front-runner in 1992, Republicans went to work denigrating Arkansas. . . .
The GOP will be making meat out of Dean's New York background, too. They will have a harder time of it since they have chosen to hold their convention in New York next summer. This was a cynical decision, intended to provide a backdrop for yet one more presidential victory lap in the war on terrorism.
As for the convention, is there a non-cynical way to decide where to hold a political party convention? I'm not even sure that "cynical" means anything in this regard. Kinsley complains that, in 1992, Republicans dismissed New York, the site of the Democratic convention, as "not the real America. Urban. Ethnic. Noisy, crowded, dirty." Can he really not think of any thing that's happened since then (or two things, maybe) that makes New York and the Republican party a more natural fit?
Posted by David Cohen at November 20, 2003 3:41 PMKinsley also wrote an essay just last week that 'somehow' neglected to mention 9/11 as the seminal event between 2000 and 2003. Perhaps is more frightened than he seems on TV. Or it might be that over-education thing again.
Oh yeah, Texas was given a free pass by the Democrats in the 2000 election. In fact, I have heard that some DNC ads are being used by the State Tourism bureau.
Posted by: MG at November 20, 2003 4:12 PMAnd of course, there was Begalla's match the Red State with beauty (match with lynchins, homophobia, environmental desacration). A veritable Cliff Notes of the Fly-By states, and all the urbane student need know.
Amazing how the Left lives in a world made 100% glass but sling them rocks with the best of them...
Posted by: MG at November 20, 2003 4:16 PMThe Dem's were worried about having to import
minorities into Boston for the conventions given
that it is probably the whitest major city in
the country.
Ultimately demonizing geography is bad political
strategy and I don't really see that much of it
coming from organized republican operatives.
Remember Republicans at least used to believe
in the concept of the silent majority. If there
was such a thing it wouldn't make sense to bash
someone's home state.
Well, golly gee, Michael, that there is a right fine theory of yours, and were it not for the fact that Dean got into trouble two weeks ago for first saying he wanted to be the candidate of folks with Confederate flags and pick-ups and then spent the latter part of the week dissing those same people during a fundraiser in Florida, this essay might made one iota of sense.
Dean and the other Democratic candates were the ones denegrating the section of the country on the other side of the Fourteenth Street bridge from the U.S. Capitol, a condesending tone that gets worse the closer the location in question is to Crawford, Texas.
Ranting on for 700 words about slights to Vermont while ignoring all the recent problems the Democrats have had with the southern part of the country is just as blind as in Kinsley's last column, when he managed to leave 9/11 out of the equasion.
Posted by: John at November 20, 2003 8:40 PMSays Kinsley, "Massachusetts, to its credit, is a bit south of Vermont. On the other hand, it is full of universities. Need we say more?"
No.
I've been to all 50 states, repeatedly...I've been to both Arkansas and Vermont...on more than one occasion. And, while I haven't seen any Republicans making fun of Vermont (or Arkansas), they'd be perfectly justified in doing so.
(PS: Had the misfortune to be in Burlington, VT, on opening night of the first Gulf War. Burlington is the home of VT's University. Was treated to a goofy hippie kid yelling at CNN in a coffee shop, "Yeah...real good reason to start a war...OIL!" Hadda suppress a giggle.)
Posted by: Brian McKim at November 21, 2003 6:06 AMBrian:
Oil IS the reason that the US went to the Gulf in '90, and the reason that the US attacked Iraq in '03.
It's not a particularly good reason, either. Just the cheapest, by some measures.
If not oil, why ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 21, 2003 7:58 AMOh, we will make fun of Vermont if Dean gets the nomination. Mark my words. And it will be legitimate, as Vermont's population is smaller than most major cities, and more liberal than most major universities.
(Note: part 1 was true, part 2 was a cheap shot. I plan on using both types should Dean get the nod.)
Posted by: Timothy at November 21, 2003 10:46 AM