The South shall rise again

[lwcon]

Earlier this week, some yankee jackass (yours truly) wrote a snarky post about the South, which sparked a little flamewar. This is *not* an invitation to go there again -- the mods would rightly shut us down.

The previous thread touched a nerve -- many southern Democrats feel underappreciated for their efforts and to some extent (and, in some cases, highly) optimistic that their states should not be written off as unwinnable (as Thomas Schaller has proposed).

One of the prevailing comments was that northerners on DU are ignorant of the realities of today's South. Maybe we can change that a little bit here...

It's no exaggeration to say that the fate of our country hangs in the balance in the 2008 presidential election. With that in mind, I invite our southern friends to educate the rest of us on the reality on the ground in states that have been lost to us these last two election cycle, but which perhaps might not be next time around.

For me, several questions jump to mind:

1. How vulnerable have the crimes and failures of the Bush years made the GOP in the South?
2. Which of those scandals and fiascoes has, or could have, the most resonance with southern voters?
3. How much anti-war sentiment is there in the South?
4. How important is it that a Southerner be on the ticket?
5. Why didn't Al Gore get support in the South, even in Tennessee?
6. How much is religion a litmus test in the South? Is it enough to be privately religious, or do you have to be outspoken about it? If you're a non-Christian are you a non-starter in the South?
7. How much do Southern voters actually care about issues like gay marriage and abortion?
8. What progressive issues do or could resonate with Southern voters?

Let's all please keep it *constructive* here. Please take this an opportunity to tell your side of the story, but not to revisit old grievances (if you're still mad about my previous post, feel free to send me a private message). If you're mad at southerners for something or other, leave it at the door, OK?

I ask these questions (and invite answering of ones I didn't think to ask) because it was clear that a lot of you feel misunderstood. So, please help us understand.


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[formercia]

1. Reconstruction

What happened in the aftermath of Katrina may have the same effect on the South that the misnamed period called Reconstruction had upon southern Whites after the Civil War. It drove the South into the arms of the Democratic Party.

[lwcon]

5. Does the rest of the south...

... embrace Louisiana as one of its own?

Does leaving New Orleans high and dry (or, rather painfully, the opposite) hurt him if he's viewed as being more solicitous of Mississippi -- where he was quite concerned about Trent Lott's home -- than of a city and state led by Democrats?


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[formercia]

15. I think Junior is rightly seen in the South as

head of a bunch of 'Carpetbaggers' that moved into the South after Katrina to prey on the misfortune of its citizens. There is a genuine collective feeling that Junior is is not a Texan but an ersatz representation of one, and part and parcel of his father's pseudo-elite Northern predatory species that has been plundering the South for generations.

[lwcon]

16. Certainly we hear the "all-hat, no-cattle" thing

And his homespun shtick looks awfully contrived to these eyes, but the fact is he did get the votes -- over a native Tennessean. So what gives?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[formercia]

17. It's called Election Fraud.n/t

[lwcon]

18. Florida, which many people insist isn't a true southern state...

... was famously a scene of fraud. Are there documented stories -- substantial enough to have swung the totals -- from the other states?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[formercia]

20. Documenting Election Fraud in the South

Georgia is a good example:

http://www.countpaperballots.com/Georgia.htm

[lwcon]

24. Interesting...

Did this get any attention from the MSM?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[formercia]

30. We need to get the attention of Southerners.

They need to fight for an honest vote. The political system in the South has always been corrupt, be it under Democratic or Republican rule. Perhaps the citizens have become so used to the way things are, that they just bury their heads in the sand or pray for salvation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Hmm bringing a whole different national experience

it does have a ring of familiarity

Vote because you are expected to, but not expect it to be counted

Oh and the corruption issue is a very serious issue

[tsuki]

96. It is no longer. All the "blue states" keep exporting their "red population"

here. The Democratic Party meetings are like old home week. But the number keeps getting smaller as native Floridians are moving out, no longer able to afford to live here.

As a result, my county actually voted for the possum woman with the pointy tits. Yeck! And it ain't getting any better.

[kimmylavin]

2. Good questions...

Honestly, I'd like to hear what some people have as answers for these as well...
Seems that so much of politics is dividing people into "us" and "them", even among people who are supposedly on the same side.

[formercia]

3. Divide and Conquer

The boys have been using the ploy for generations. It's how the few can rule the many.

Create factions and pit them against each other.

[BohemianJordy]

4. I'll take a stab at this...

Hi!

I'm from Texas so I can hopefully give a little insight at least about what some people from my area think:

I think that its a problem, that generally alot of people I know feel a certain way about an issue and wont be convinced of another. I mean, people in my in high school, and even at my university, will support the Bush admins policies even if it goes against their personal morale or ethical beliefs...which confuses the hell out of me.

Many will say they beleive in certain things (and sure enough I have many people that I know who are anti-gay rights, anti-choice, anti-evolution, and feel that the religious values are most important in a candidate) and will not sway in that. The thing is, they will twist and squirm and support their leadership despite the fact that they wouldn't agree with it, say, if a democrat did the exact same thing.

I hope this makes some sense...but it feels, at least with alot of people I've known throughout my life (short 21 years) that they will support a candidate or leadership regardless of what they do simply because of partisan party politics. I don't know, I think it makes it very difficult...and I feel that party labels are the majority of the problem. You could have a democratic candidate who ran on EXACTLY the same platform as the republican in an election, and I believe the republican would win simply because there is an R by his name. I think its all rather stupid...

I am really sorry because I feel that I haven't really been constructive in offering anything to the table that's meaningful. I'm sure its possible to win the south, but if there's many people like the ones I know, I feel that the fight would be very difficult and the plan for winning, well, I have no idea...

I don't know, I'd be interested to see how other's feel...I'm studying abroad right now and wont be back in the United States for 2 years, so I'm really interested to keep up with things.

P.S. sorry for the lengthy post. Its fun to talk to americans every once in awhile. And sorry too if its worded badly...I think my enlgish is suffering *grins*

[lwcon]

7. Thanks for weighing in!

You're giving voice to a very troubling issue, the tribal aspect of GOP politics.

I have to admit, it's made me pretty cynical. To think anyone wouldn't want to run this president out of town on a rail at this point kind of takes a toll on one's faith in one's fellow man.

Sounds like a lot of folks see a path out of this, and happy days will be here again. I profoundly hope they're right.

The 2006 elections were certainly a step in the right direction, but the make-up of the electoral college raises the degree of difficulty.

Obviously a lot is going to come down to the candidate and whether we can keep the media from ripping him or her to shreds they way they did Gore and Kerry. Personally, I think that Gore plus eight years of people seeing what the alternative is would be enough to win this thing, but who knows if he'll run or if he'll get the nomination.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[annabanana]

77. Is part of it a "team" identity? Once you are part of a "team"

you stick with it no matter what? That might explain why something can be wrong if a D does it and right when an R does it, like you said. Maybe they internalize the membership. (I am a good person, so my team is a "good" team)

[MGD]

6. Here's a hint,

All else being equal (which it pretty much is), if the average southern white heterosexual male has to choose between having his right to keep and bear arms taken away so that his homosexual neighbor can have the right to get married and his 16 year old sister can have the right to have an abortion, he's going to vote for his right to keep and bear arms pretty much 100% of the time. If you don't understand this, then you have no grasp of American political and social history.

[lwcon]

8. Are any Democrats running against the Second Amendment?

Why doesn't the sight of John Kerry hunting pheasants quell this concern?

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[MGD]

10. H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

Looks like it to me.

[benEzra]

39. Because only 5% of gun owners are bird hunters, that's why...

Are any Democrats running against the Second Amendment?

Why doesn't the sight of John Kerry hunting pheasants quell this concern?

Because only 5% of gun owners are bird hunters, that's why, and only around 20% hunt at all (~13-16 million out of ~80 million).

Please check out the following essay, which I wrote in 2004, and which I think was largely vindicated in 2006 by the Webb/Tester/Casey/Strickland/Duckworth races:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

Personally, I don't give a flying crap if you'll "allow" me to own a high-powered deer rifle or high-zoot bird/skeet shotgun, if you are trying to ban our family's handguns and small-caliber nonhunting-style rifles. Like most gun owners, my wife and I I don't hunt and don't shoot skeet.

Senator Kerry did, unfortunately, promise to ban some of the most popular civilian target rifles in America, including a third or more of the guns in our family's guns safe, and the party leadership yanked him off the campaign trail on SUPER TUESDAY to go vote for what would have been the most sweeping gun ban in U.S. history (S.1431), had it passed.

[lwcon]

42. A most interesting analysis

I've bookmarked it for future re-reading.

Thanks!


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[krispos42]

78. It's part of the party platform

The platform says they are for 'reasonable gun control', then immediately say they are for a re-issue of the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban, which is by most people's standards unreasonable.

For example, which one of these is a 'deadly assault weapon'?

This one:





or this one?






Here's the surprise: They are both the same gun! Same barrel, same trigger, same receiver, same bolt, same serial number! But because someone took two minutes and a wrench to change the stock, the exact same gun goes from being a sporting rifle to a deadly assault weapon.


It's like saying a car with bucket seats is a deadly race car, but a car with bench seats is an innocent Sunday driver. Because, you know, bucket seats hold you better than a bench seat, enabling you to drive more dangerously and putting the general public at HORRIBLE RISK! Dear God, how the streets have run RED WITH BLOOD since we allowed car makers to put bucket seats in automobiles!!!!
:sarcasm:

I looked up the history of the party's platform. The post is here. You should probably read it.

As soon as we started banning so-called 'assault weapons', we started losing elections. We developed the platform for the '92 elections, got the AWB in 1993, and commenced losing everything except the 1996 Presidental election. It took a morass in Iraq for us to win again.

It is the stated opinion of the Democratic frontrunners that the 2nd only covers hunting guns.

[SemperEadem]

103. Because Kerry, to this particular person, is the enemy

doesn't matter that he's out hunting and isn't interested in taking away people's guns. He has been told, and believes, that the Democrats want to strip him of his 'heritage'--strip his guns from his home; strip his bible from his home; strip his children from their parents and let gays break into his home to have sex with them; strip him of his wife making less money than him in the workplace.

It isn't about running against the second amendment: it's about the success of a lie which has taken root and flourished like kutzoo in the 26 years it's been alive by those (mainly preachers/evangelists) who use the false notion of the loss of 'heritage' as justification to control non-conservative citizens of this country.

[William769]

11. Spoken like a true northerner.

[MGD]

19. You should be embarrassed by your lack of historical perspective Will

The South has never been about progressive/liberal ideals. The South is, has always been, and will always be about tradition and culture and that's just another way to say conservatism. At one time, not so long ago, damn near every white southerner was a yellow dog Democrat. It was the liberal policies of FDR that changed it and it is the continued liberal policies of today that maintains it. You are repudiated.

[William769]

21. Like I said, spoken like a true Northerner.

:eyes:

[MGD]

33. I'll take that as a compliment William.

Perhaps when you think of something new to say we'll continue this stimulating discussion.

[Bridget Burke]

31. No, FDR didn't turn the South Republican.

The "Southern Strategy" did. In which Republicans played on the racism of some Southerners.

Remember, the South includes many non-white, non-male, non-het voters. And our demographics change daily--for the better.

But, what do I know? I live in Texas.

[MGD]

35. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

FDR's liberalism is exactly what turned the south Republican. It was Strom Thurmond who, in 1948, revolted against the new liberalism of the Democratic party which was now widely perceived as a threat to the conservative values of the south and it was he who led the "Dixiecrats" away from the Democratic party. It was he who swung the first blow that fractured the party but that fracture resulted from a clash between conservative and liberal ideals within the party. Nixon's southern strategy simply exploited that fracture created 20 years previously. It was John F. Kennedy who promised to mend the fracture but, conveniently for the Republican party, he was murdered in your very own lone star state. Incidentally, I learned all of this stuff in my mandatory Texas State Politics class which I attended in, none other than, Texas where I lived for a third of my life...right up until seven months ago actually.

[ieoeja]

36. Right. It just took 48 years.

1936 - Democrat swept southern states
1940 - Democrat swept southern states
1944 - Democrat swept southern states
1948 - split between Democrat and Strom Thurmond with majority to Democrat
1952 - split between D and R with majority D
1956 - split between D and R with majority D
1960 - split between D and R with majority D
1964 - split between D and R; no clear majority
1968 - split between Republican and George Wallace; no clear majority
1972 - Republican swept southern states (almost entire country)
1976 - Democrat swept southern states
1980 - split between D and R with majority R
1984 - Republican swept southern states
1988 - Republican swept southern states
1992 - split between D and R with majority R
1996 - split between D and R with majority R
2000 - Republican swept southern states
2004 - Republican swept southern states

If the change was due to FDR's liberalism, then it was a tremendously delayed reaction as 100% of the southern electoral votes went for FDR's re-election every time he ran. The first time the South split was when Truman put an end to the lynch laws (and de-segregated the military; but the lynch law was Thurmond's main campaign platform).

The South continued splitting -- with the majority going to the Democrats -- until LBJ signed the Voting Rights Act. The first solid Republican majority in the South really didn't come until 1980. Which makes for an almost 50 year delayed reaction to FDR's liberalism.

[MGD]

58. Basically, yes. A shift of this magnitude doesn't happen overnight.

The question is, what triggered it in the first place. I contend that new deal liberalism was too incompatible with the deep rooted southern conservatism (which took many forms but was most notably manifested as white power, heritage, and culture). I further contend that the new deal Democrats were ultimately and inevitably forced to fracture the Democratic party because of these incompatibilities. Foremost among these new deal Democrats was Harry Truman of course. Strom Thurmond wrote the writing on the wall in 1948, it has just taken the rest of the south a while to read it.


Listen to what Strom had to say about it:
"I did not risk my life on the beaches of Normandy to come back to this country and sit idly by while a bunch of hack politicians whittles away your heritage and mine."
Strom Thurmond

"If I had been elected president in 1948, history would be vastly different. I believe we would have stemmed the growth of Big Government, which had begun with the New Deal and culminated with the Great Society."
Strom Thurmond

The south just isn't a bastion of liberalism. The south is about heritage and tradition and conservatism and christianity, basically all things diametrically opposed to liberalism and it was the New Deal that transferred liberalism from the Republican party to the Democratic party.

[athena]

63. I believe Bridget is correct.

Please check out the article I refer to below, in post #48. The first two pages are all about how the Republicans' Southern Strategy, combined with negligence on the part of the Democratic party, turned the South red.

[MGD]

70. No thanks

[athena]

73. So you won't even look at the article. How interesting.

Dude, it makes no difference to me whether you read the article or not. If you're so afraid of having your views challenged that you can't even look at an article that someone has mentioned as relevant (and will go out of your way to point out that you haven't looked at it), that's your problem. If you were here for a discussion, you wouldn't be afraid to at least skim the article and explain what you think of it.

[trof]

9. Will the chair recognize the Gentleman from Alabama?

Thank you, thank you...

Here's the best answer I can give to most of the questions you ask.
I was born and raised here. Grew up in Birmingham in the bad ol' days of the 40s and 50s. Left the state in my 20s and returned in my 50s. There have been some 'surface changes', but the old prejudices still lurk, just below the surface in many cases.

You don't hear the 'n' word much any more, but you do hear remarks about 'those people'. We all know who 'those people' are. Except now 'those people' may include Hispanics.

In many ways political ignorance and apathy abound.
Many don't want to talk about current issues because, frankly, they don't know much about them and so are uncomfortable trying to sound knowledgeable.

1. What crimes and failures? Many don't know or don't see them that way. There's still the notion of 'supporting our president', no matter what.

2. Probably most resonance would have to do with things military. If Bush can be made to be seen as damaging our troops, THAT would resonate.

3. I see some anti-war sentiment, but only because it seems to be going badly. More anti- 'this' war than war ingeneral.

4. My gut feeling is that one southerner on the ticket might get some votes here. Especially if it's a popular one who can't be trashed by the right wingers.

5. I think the MSM did a hatchet job on Gore and I really don't know why. We're eager to believe the worst about politicians, even if it's not true.

6. Religion is still very much a litmus test in the state. It pains me to see politicians who I know to be thoughtful, intelligent people trying to out-Jesus each other. If you're not a Christian, keep it to yourself. If you come out of the closet as an atheist, just go ahead and shut down your campaign and drop out. You got no chance.

7. Gay marriage and abortion are still hot-button issues (duh) and can be 'make or break' issues. Black political organizations, many organized through their churches, and mostly Democrat, are particularly vehement about gays. The other hot-button is the 'war against Christianity', although there don't seem to many of the hardcore (former) Judge Roy Moore variety. The Alabama Christian Coalition was embarrassed by the Abramoff scandals (money they received from him) and has changed their name. I think that has weakened them.

8. Again, anything to do with the military. If Democrats are seen as the good guys and repugs as the bad guys that will swing some weight.

Thanks for asking.

[poorinnaples]

13. "Borning Fighting"...

As one with deep Alabama roots, & whose great grandfather, & his brothers, fought with the 26th/50th Alabama Infantry Regiment, I highly recommend James "Born Fighting" Webb's book about our roots, & why we think & act as we do. To say the least, it's very insightful tome, & most revealing.

"Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America"
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916883

[lwcon]

14. I thank the Gentleman from Alabama

I'm much obliged for your thoughtful answers!

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

37. Thank you trof and B-Jordy for your thoughtful responses

Boy, at the risk of sounding like an asshole (a risk I take frequently), I could have batted 8-8 (...yes, spoken like a true northerner). And yet, I'm always shocked to find myself deeply depressed time and time again.

In light of your post specifically, and this thread in general, I have these questions for all Americans.

How important is it for all of us to remain in this unhappy marriage? Wouldn't both halves get more accomplished and function both better and more efficiently without the other? We already agree that we disagree. Let's call it "irreconsilable differences" and just leave it at that. Should we not stop with all this wasteful tomfoolery, i.e., if the R's take control, it's our objective as D's to fight them tooth-and-nail over every minutia and vise versa? Impeach Clinton, impeach Bush...is this our only/ultimate recourse? Borders are arbitrary. In terms of population by "red state/blue state", the nation is split 50-50.


I'll duck for cover now in case any/everyone wishes to throw a grenade at me.

Thanks.

[lwcon]

44. If I may step in here...

The post that inspired the aforementioned flame-war was my snarky suggestion along these lines, so I think we've -- as a guy I used to work with would say -- beaten this dead horse to death.

The dust-up showed me that there are a lot of DUers who understandably feel like the baby who's being thrown out with the bathwater when we criticize -- and write off -- their states.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

47. No problem. I didn't see the post you refer to. Blow my post away if it belongs elsewhere. n/t

[trof]

53. Appreciate the baby-bathwater analogy. Here's what we're trying to do.

Us babies want to stay in the tub with the rest of you guys.

A BIG part of the problem in Alabama is our constitution.
It was written by the so called 'Big Mules' (big landowners and industrialists) in 1901. The twofold purpose was to keep blacks and poor whites from voting and to concentrate ALL power in Montgomery, the state capitol. Our counties have NO home rule. Municipalities, for the most part, have very limited home rule.

If the citizens in your town want to levy a tax that the majority of the townspeople WANT, it still must go through the state legislature and usually a statewide vote. And that is just dumb.

Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform have been trying for years to get a proposal on the ballot for a constitutional convention. They've (we, me) been gaining support, bit by bit, year by year, to the point where we may actually have a shot at it.

Opposed to it are the Big Mules, repugs almost to a man.
So you can see where the support is coming from.
Our guys.

If we can bring it off, and that's still a mighty big IF, you are likely to see a big change in voting patterns in Alabama.

We're workin' on it guys, just as hard as we can.
Any encouragement we can find here is sure welcome.
Thanks.

[lwcon]

65. Man, they've got you/us coming and going

The gerrymandering, the election fraud, the inequities of the electoral college, the phony patriotism and sanctimoniousness, the media in their pocket, the deficit-financed pork, and starting a random war so they'd have "a war president" -- and then local procedural bullshit like this.

I guess they have to -- no one would vote for these bastards if there were a level playing field.

Shows you what a minor miracle the mid-term elections were, and the future miracles we'll need in 2008!

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

71. I just haven't heard anything that hints of a change in the status quo.

And as long as things remain as they are, santimonious, self-serving clowns like the Tom Delays will always have a job. Seriously, what would a Tom Delay do if he didn't have Dems to pick fights with?

...whatever the answer to that question is, I don't want it to affect me. Let him serve the needs of those who put him in office.

[poorinnaples]

12. The Real Lincoln...

I've truly never understood why the Democratic Party accepted "Honest Abe" as one of their own, without at least giving the career of such a divisive politico, a second look.

I think if Americans, both north & south, would take a second look at what they think they know about the "civil war" & reconstruction, all Americans might be a little closer to understanding each other.

I'm honestly convinced, if the court "historians" are given their way, 100 years from now, our grandchildren will be taught about "The Great Liberator", Honest George W. Bush.

Thomas DiLorenzo has recently written two books about, what many Americans consider to be the "Lincoln Myth", & whether you believe them, or not, they're well documented, provide considerable food for thought, & sure seem to closely reflect our current situation.

This is one "good old boy", who'd never vote for a Republican..."Hell no I ain't fergettin'"

* * *

"The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War"
http://www.amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abraham-Agenda-Unnecessary/dp/0761536418

"Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe"
http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Unmasked-Youre-Supposed-Dishonest/dp/030733841X

[raccoon]

22. The Real Lincoln...??

"...he won the Republican Party nomination in 1860 and was elected president later that year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

[poorinnaples]

26. My point being...

I think most Americans, at least older than age ten, know Lincoln's party, but the point being, maybe it's time Democrats take another look at "Honest Abe", & not be so quick to accept what many believe they know of the period. For myself, the idea of a "Civil War" should raise eyebrows, since in the history of the world, there has never been such a beast.

As far as I'm concerned, the parallels between what "The Great Emancipator" did, & what "The Great Decider" is doing, are downright startling. Bottom line, to believe that Lincoln's sole purposes were to "free the slaves", & "preserve the Union", is to believe that Bush's "resolve" is based on his desire to free the Iraqis, & hand them a democracy.

[raccoon]

29. Thanks for the clarification. nt

[ISUGRADIA]

64. Thomas Dilorenzo is a conferate apologist

and with Joseph Sobran and Walter Williams giving raves to this book the guy is no progressive. No matter what, Lincoln brought down the slaveocracy of the South which was based on human misery.

[poorinnaples]

67. Regardless

The historical record speaks for itself & it's there for all to read, & study, then decide for themselves. Considering the situation we find ourselves in today, it's not such a stretch to understand that manipulating public opinion, using erroneous information, is nothing new.

To suggest "the north" had clean hands, in slavery, the slave trade, bigotry against black Americans, etc., is to believe the moon is square.

Your opinion, is your opinion, just as mine, is mine, but the record exists, & speaks for itself, so I suggest everyone review it, & decide for themselves.

Having lived & worked in both the north, & the south, it has been my experience, that southerners don't even hold a monopoly on racial bigotry. Not by a long shot.

As far as DiLorenzo, his books concerning Lincoln stand on their own merit. They're both well documented, & his conclusions have withstood the challenges, by those who have attempted to dispute his research & historical evidence.

Another fact that remains, Lincoln was a Whig/Republican, not a Democrat.

"No matter what", Bush supposedly started out looking for "WMDs", & ended up doing whatever it is he's supposed to believe he's doing. Lincoln started out trying to impose an unfair, illegal tariff, on the south, & ended up overseeing the slaughter of, at the very least, 618,000 Americans, not including the uncounted deaths of non-combatant civilians, deaths by disease, untold property destruction, the looting of the US Treasury, by the war department, & Lincoln's political cronies, the suspending of habeas corpus, imprisoning thousands of his northern political opponents, etc., etc., etc.

Deja vu...it's the Republican way.

* * * *

On Aug. 22, 1862, Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."

* * * *

EXCERPT FROM LINCOLN'S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS - Monday, March 4, 1861:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

[ieoeja]

74. What a crock of shit!

The first southern states seceeded before Lincoln was even sworn in. So Lincoln did not start out, "trying to impose an unfair, illegal tariff, on the south". He started out trying to put down a rebellion.

Next you'll bring out that hold canard about the South revolting over infringements on their States Rights. The problem with that argument is that each and every federal action taking place prior to the rebellion was PRO-SLAVERY. The US Supreme Court overturned the ban on slavery in the Free States. The feds gave southern law enforcement the right to operate in northern states when seeking slaves. The feds forced northern law enforcement to assist in these operations. They even gave southern law enforcement the right to impress/draft northern civilians into these activities. So if the South really did rebell over States Rights, then they did so in support of the Northern states. Why rebell when they could have simply stopped infringing on those rights up north.

[poorinnaples]

81. Thanks for the warning

...in advance...you hit the nail on the head, in describing your northern apologists slant. Northern history speaks for itself, & its not all it's cracked up to be, to say the least. No matter how you spin it, it's nothing to be very proud of...

[Jamastiene]

83. Lincoln was a Republican, not a Democrat.

But, if you are always going to vote Democrat, so be it. Don't let anyone try to stop you.

[poorinnaples]

93. Exactly...

The point I was attempting to make was, why do members of our party continue to sing Lincoln's praises, as though he were some divine martyr, instead of taking a second look at "Honest Abe", & the actual record of his statements, deeds, etc.?

It just seems to me that the great leaders of the Democratic Party, including the Founder of the party, are dismissed out of hand, by the usual Washington DC "court historians, while the so-called "leaders" of the Whig/Republican party (i.e. Lincoln, Reagan, & possibly G.W Bush) somehow receive a pass, & automatically become lesser Gods, according to the media, DC "court historians", etc., just for having breathed.

I understand Lincoln is credited with "emancipating" the slaves, "saving the union", while having his brains blown out, even though, it stretches the imagination to erroneously believe, that had he not overseen the deaths of an incalculable number of his fellow Americans, somehow slavery would have survived to this day, & the "union" would have forever been broken.

I also fear, if the facts are not recorded accurately, concerning our current "Great Decider/Liberator" that these same "court historians" may manage to have his legacy be, exactly the opposite of what most of us know to be true.

If there's one thing I would love to see, it would be that our party went full speed ahead, in defending & promoting our exceptional leaders, including Jefferson, FDR, Clinton, etc., instead standing idly by, while the media, the DC "court historians", & the opposition destroys their legacies.

Personally, I think Jefferson may have been, one of the greatest Americans that ever lived, & I believe Clinton, in many ways, was one of the greater political figures, of the modern age, & even Carter is 10 times the man, G.W. Bush, or Reagan could ever hope to be.

[raccoon]

23. Thanks for starting this thread. This is the kind of unity we progressives/

populists, non-neocons need.

Some of your questions I have no answer for. But I'll give a shot at some--I'll give my take on it.


"3. How much anti-war sentiment is there in the South?"

Not enough! But I think it's growing because it's dragged on so long.

"4. How important is it that a Southerner be on the ticket?"

I don't think it's important to most people.


"5. Why didn't Al Gore get support in the South, even in Tennessee?"

My guess is they perceived him as a liberal and as wimpy.


"6. How much is religion a litmus test in the South? Is it enough to be privately religious, or do you have to be outspoken about it?"

I don't think a candidate HAS to be outspoken about it.

"If you're a non-Christian are you a non-starter in the South?"

Yes.


"7. How much do Southern voters actually care about issues like gay marriage and abortion?"


It would seem that many do, unfortunately. However, as these types tend to be more vocal and flaunting their bumper-stickers, it's hard to say.


"8. What progressive issues do or could resonate with Southern voters?"

Health care, framed properly (for instance, Medicare for all).

[lwcon]

27. Your #5 begs the question...

Will "liberal" forever be a kiss of death in southern states?


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[raccoon]

28. For many, probably so. Unless we can un-demonize the word.

Or keep the candidate from being labeled as liberal.

Sad but I think it's true.

[Demi_Babe]

61. yes

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteppingRazor]

34. Properly framed, many progressive issues have legs in the South. Take environmentalism....

just call it "conservation" (to the bubba vote, environmentalists are lunatics. Conservationists are not.) and get the support of otherwise conservative voters who care about preserving natural wildlife spaces (read: hunters).

Of course, the previous example means abandoning another traditionally liberal principle, federal gun control, but I think it's both a matter of priorities and also the fact that, at the risk of sounding like the NRA, the laws on the books, properly enforced, give us as much federal gun control as we need. (This, of course, doesn't include further controls mandated by the individual states.)

[benEzra]

40. That's not a "traditionally liberal principle"...

the previous example means abandoning another traditionally liberal principle, federal gun control

That's not a "traditionally liberal principle."

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control (DU thread)

I think it's both a matter of priorities and also the fact that, at the risk of sounding like the NRA, the laws on the books, properly enforced, give us as much federal gun control as we need

I agree with you there. A lot of people have no idea what Federal gun laws already exist (for example, that it's a 10-year felony to possess an actual AK-47 or Uzi without Federal authorization, a BATFE Form 4).

[AshevilleGuy]

38. It's all about the Baptists and their fellow travelers.

They are everywhere, but they are more entrenched here in the South (not Asheville, but most other places). They are legion and they mostly vote the way their pastors "suggest". This is lifelong brainwashing, almost to the cult level. Their leaders really got their act together in the late 70s, and it continues. You also see this same thing in OH, IN, and other parts of the MidWest, such as OK, KS and MO.

I have worked with them when I lived in Eastern TN (which is OWNED by them); these people are as nice as they can be, would give you the "shirts off their backs", if need be, but by golly when the conversation turns to religion/politics (which is inseparable to them) their eyes glaze over, become opaque, and they go into automatic control. It is absolutely FUTILE to argue issues with them. They have a verse of Scripture to cover any situation or question; since this is the Word of God, they allow nothing to counter it, no matter how well reasoned the offending logic, no matter how weighty the opposing evidence. And they all VOTE... They try to control the local elections, especially school boards - they can't have their kids being taught 'secular' trash after all. "Christian" = republican.

How do you change this? Please do not say, educate them. Many are college grads, many with advanced degrees. But they have this one absolute blind spot, so thorough has been the brainwashing. Just try arguing with them, you will see.

[lwcon]

41. I have had the "pleasure" of arguing with them...

... and they'll go every which way but logical, consistent, and especially Democratic.

It's this sense of intractability that leads to the "Whistling Past Dixie" conclusion. Hillary Clinton could file an amendment to make school prayer mandatory, pass out free assault weapons, make abortions and homosexuality illegal, repeal all taxes, and bomb every foreign country, and the people you describe will still call her a stinkin' liberal.

So that is the question, "how do we change this?"

IMHO, the fight for the separation of church and state is hugely important, as is asserting the right to speak freely about religion and -- especially -- the religiose. So long as these pastors are treated as literally unquestionable, there is no breaking their grip.

Of course, these folks will interpret such talk as proof that Democrats are all heathens. But if they're programmed to hate us anyway, do we need to walk on eggshells? And by we, I'm very much including people like the Southern Evangelical Jimmy Carter, who is a devout Christian but also an outspoken opponent of the politicization of religion and the religification of politics.


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[AshevilleGuy]

43. I do not know how we change it.

Such is brainwashing. In 1992 my sec'y, who was my friend, was all for Clinton/Gore because she LIKED them. The Monday morning before the election she had that look on her face, and curtly informed me that she could NOT vote for an "abortionist". End of conversation. I knew to let it go, it was pointless to argue. Her friend told me later that her Baptist preacher had gotten to her on Sunday in his sermon.

Jimmy Carter is in the minority among Baptists, and he was ejected from the "Southern" Baptists because of it, as was Al Gore I believe. There was a seismic rift between the two factions back in the 80s (?), with the RW branch winning. They are in complete control now, and amount to a huge political force. They are programmed to hate our politics and religious heresies, not us strangely enough, and short of having them all deprogrammed as if they were in a cult, I do not see how we change them.

The only solution is getting non-brainashed people to vote but that is very tricky. I do not trust people who are in their 30s and 40s who have never bothered to vote - there is no telling what they will do once in the voting booth. :shrug:

[lwcon]

45. Thanks for an honest -- if chilling -- response n/t

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[lwcon]

49. Oh, and as far as I know it's illegal for a minister to...

... tell people how to vote. Maybe we should start some cases about this.

I'm sure Karl Rove's handpicked attorneys will be right on this....

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[AshevilleGuy]

51. I am sure it's all done subtly.

How do Pat and Big Jerry do it?? Carefully, but they get their points across. Doesn't PR create the "Voters' Guides" for every election, which are distributed in most Baptist and other evangelical churches? They have been challenged before but to no avail, I believe, with the IRS as final arbiter. I suspect that those "guides" have swung many elections.

But it might well be something for us to try again. The problem is, it's so easy for Dems to get painted as 'anti-God'.

[lwcon]

52. I hope someone does do this

Might help just to put a little "fear of God/IRS" into those preachers.

There's something a little liberating about knowing that we're going to be painted as "anti-God" (or more to the point, "immoral" and "against family values") no matter what.

The Repubs use the "Overton Window" technique to move public opinion, with their extremists defining (of course) the righthand edge. The more rightward their extremists, the more rightward "the center" recalibrates to.

Thus if secular folks like myself are afraid to speak up, we never shift the window on what's acceptable religious practice in our country in the other direction.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Jamastiene]

87. It is illegal, but they do it.

Most of the polling places for the various precincts in the county where I live (Richmond County) are set up in churches.

Here is a list of precincts that are in churches or on church property in Richmond County in North Carolina (complete with pictures):

Wolf Pit #2
Community Church Rec Bldg
193 Mill Rd
Rockingham , NC 28379
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pollingplace/precinct.asp?cID=77&pID=5

Wolf Pit #4
Ellerbe Grove Baptist Church
162 Ellerbe Grove Church Rd
Rockingham , NC 28379
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pollingplace/precinct.asp?cID=77&pID=7

Marks Creek #1
1st United Methodist Ch Fellowship Hall
300 Charlotte St
Hamlet , NC 28345
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pollingplace/precinct.asp?cID=77&pID=8

Marks Creek #2
1st Presbyterian Ch Fellowship Hall
200 Rice St
Hamlet , NC 28345
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pollingplace/precinct.asp?cID=77&pID=9

Beaver Dam #2
Mt Zion Ch Fellowship Hall
986 Ledbetter Rd
Rockingham , NC 28379
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pollingplace/precinct.asp?cID=77&pID=11

Steeles #2
Parsons Grove Baptist Church
561 Teddar Rd
Mt. Gilead , NC 27306
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/pollingplace/precinct.asp?cID=77&pID=15

And this is just one county in North Carolina. Imagine all the other rural areas and compound this number by about 94-95 counties in NC that do not contain a major metropolitan city with a more progressive population.

So on top of the brainwashing, they are "in God's house" when they vote. There is no breaking the effects of the brainwashing on election day when they gotta stand in a church to vote and they've been told day in and day out how evil and satanic the Democratic Party is. It HAS to add to the effect at least some if you think about it.

[Jamastiene]

84. Well said.

That about sums up what I was going to say. The cult like following and the glazed over eyes and everything right down the line. Unfortunately, the majority here in the south votes Republican because their preachers told them to. It all goes back the the KKK riding into churches on their horses way back when telling them to vote against labor unions and anything remotely related to civil rights. They did as they were told and they did it dutifully and religiously. Now, instead of it being the KKK, it's the preachers. The same venomous hate is there and the same warped logic controls many areas in the south to this day. They just dress differently now. The "reasons" "excuses" are still pretty much based on the same bigoted ideology of yesteryear. In other words, same shit different delivery system and the suckers vote themselves out of opportunity after opportunity year after year because they are so brainwashed that no one can reach them. There are a lot of people who are that way. Those are hopeless cases. You can try to play a Democratic candidate to them any way you want that demo to appear, they aren't budging. Damn hardheadedest bunch of people on the face of the planet. It's a damn shame that many dems in the south have to put up with them and cannot make any headway to make this area of the country more progressive.

[flaminbats]

46. thanks for posting this..

if our party gives up on winning in the south, this will ultimately result in more southern voters giving up on the two-party system! The Democrats' greatest weakness in the south isn't bigotry or racism of the Republican voters, because that group is shrinking! it is the inability of our party to actively recruit and bring disenchanted nonvoting, young citizens into the process. There is a growing group of citizens in the south..who are not bigots, who are not religious zealots, and who oppose this war in Iraq. unfortunately these people don't vote because they feel unwelcome in the Democratic Party..and because they are sick of being attacked as unpatriotic every time they stand up for their political beliefs. these people will only become active with the support of Democratic leaders and more leverage within local and state governments.

In regard to your first two questions, I think the scandals and crimes of this Administration would be an effective way to win the votes of younger post-boomers into our party. This along with offering universal healthcare will produce a growing base of support in the south. Question 3 should ask a different question..how much support is there in the south FOR the war? Most southerners will not pay higher taxes to continue this war in Iraq, and many southerners don't even support the repeal of Bush's taxcuts to support this war! So who really supports our troops? Regarding having a southerner on the ticket, this should not be seen an electoral college strategy..but as a longterm strategy for rebuilding our party in each southern state and as a means of blocking single party control over one of the most diverse regions in the country.

Why didn't Gore win a single southern state? I'm still asking myself that today..why did Clinton win in states like Tennessee and Arkansas but Al Gore didn't? I think the presence of Ross Perot helped Clinton allot in the south, I also think Democratic leaders greatly underestimated the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2000 and its support in the south. I also think many voters who now regret supporting Bush read allot of their own hopes and dreams into being compassionate conservative..they wanted another Bill Clinton! Religion in the south doesn't win votes, it only drives them away. In other words religion is a fine political weapon, and more Democrats need to learn how to use it if they want to beat Republicans in the south. Regarding abortion and gay marriage, I don't think most voters give a damn. But when Republicans say that locking women up for abortion is pro-life, we need to ask them why? When Republicans say gay marriage is dangerous..we need to ask them if prohibition and imprisoning flagburners will protect us again? Southerners don't like big brother, but when big brother tells us that we shouldn't be gay, we shouldn't drink, we should all be prolife, and blindly supporting him in Iraq is patriotic..most southern voters just roll their eyes and laugh!

Universal healthcare, balancing the budget, and cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants are issues that will win votes in the south..and all are issues that Republicans have failed miserably on. Democrats will not win a solid south, but we can win in the south..and make it a region which Republicans must fight for to win votes. Whenever a Republican like Saxby Chambliss or Richard Shelby proclaim that insurance companies should have the right to cherry pick who they cover, these creeps should be forced to defend those beliefs in November..and not re-elected without a fight!

[athena]

48. The Way Down South

This Nation article argues that the South was never all that conservative, and that Democrats make a big mistake in writing the South off as hopeless:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070212/moser

[lwcon]

50. Sorry, but it's four-alarm bullshit...

... for Moser to say that Democrats are running screaming away from the mainstream.

As so many of us report on this site all day every day, too many in the Democratic party are bending over backwards to be so-called centrists.

As to the southern mindset becoming gradually more "mainstream," no doubt there's a lot of truth in that. But it doesn't seem to budge the bible-thumping folks that AshevilleGuy described herein.


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[athena]

56. That's not what the article says.

Moser says that the Democratic Party is running screaming away from the South, not from the mainstream. His main argument is that Democrats are wrong in thinking that the only way to win the South is to run Republican-Lite candidates. He points out that there are growing numbers of liberals in the South but that the Democratic Party is doing nothing to get their vote. Here is an excerpt:

National Democrats have leaned on the myth, too, using it to justify their drift from economic populism toward a Clinton-style, Wall Street-friendly centrism. Coming off three straight Democratic wipeouts in the 1980s, Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council persuaded many in the party that their only chance to compete in the vote-rich South was by "neutralizing" distinctions with the omnipotent Republicans. The "Republican Lite" strategy led to some statewide Democratic victories in Dixie in the 1990s, and Clinton used it to win eight Old South and border South states in both his 1992 and '96 presidential victories. But Republican Lite gave Democrats an eerie resemblance to the old mushy, stand-for-nothing Republican Party, and the strategy has paid diminishing returns over time. For the Democrats' largest and most loyal Southern constituency, Republican Lite represents an outright betrayal. "They spend 95 percent of the time trying to sway away white moderates and even conservatives," says Willie Legette, a longtime African-American political organizer in South Carolina. "The message is, 'We're no longer the party concerned with reducing racial and class inequalities.' They're so bent on not being identified as the party of liberalism that they give us no reason to vote."

[lwcon]

57. As Emily Litella would say, "Never mind!"

My apologies to Mr. Moser.

I've heard so much of that phony "bipartisanship" equivalation meme, where Dems are supposedly too shrill and liberal for the "centrist" public -- especially in red states -- I was too quick on the trigger after reading the last sentence of the previous quote.

Glad to hear another voice speaking out against Republican Lite!

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[athena]

60. Thanks.

I can see that the original excerpt I posted could be read, out of context, as an argument in favor of centrism. I'm glad you pointed this out and let me clarify Moser's position.

[lwcon]

62. And back at you...

...for being understanding about my original, dismissive response!
___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[ieoeja]

54. Why not ask the good Doctor?

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/

[ieoeja]

55. More here.

http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol4/iss3/art5/

"It also provides preliminary evidence that Dean's fifty-state strategy paid off in terms of increasing the Democratic vote share beyond the bounce of a national tide favoring Democrats."

[The Gunslinger]

59. At least in my part of NC.

NC will still be republican. I live in Raleigh, and everyone loves Bush. I swear I'm living in the area that carries the %30 approval for him. They hate John Edwards like the heat of a 1000 suns, and none can ever give me a reason why. (I'm guessing because he's a Democrat.) Most of those I've talked to want to kill all Muslims, bring Christ into everything. Abortion and gay marriage are not only issues, they are the biggest and they are against both. And of course they hate to pay taxes,(but never seem to mind collecting the unemployment and social security any time they can). I know this only represents those who I've come in contact here, and it's a different story up the road in Chapel Hill, but voting for a Democratic President in this state is a practically a moot point unless they get rid of the electoral college.

[lwcon]

66. Thanks for giving it to us straight

Would you say that Raleigh or Chapel Hill is more representative of the rest of the state?


___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[benEzra]

69. IMHO, Raleigh is more representative than Chapel Hill...

but both are much more urban than the state at large. Much of this state is suburban or rural.

[The Gunslinger]

75. Probably Raleigh IMO

Durham may be a little more left, and Ashville is more Liberal I've heard, but a lot of the small towns are very hard right, maybe even a little more than Raleigh.

[Jamastiene]

85. Make that a lot more very hard right than Raleigh.

I live down here in Rockingham (Richmond County). On the surface it appear like a blue county, but without the African American population here to make it so, this place would be very hard right. People here love GWB and the Republican Party no matter what they do. In their eyes, the Republicans can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right. You stated the truth very well about NC. I can second what you said as the truth as I have experienced it as well.

[mnhtnbb]

98. Orange County (where Chapel is) went 66% Kerry in 04. Edwards has moved here

for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the Chapel Hill school system is best in the State. Wake County, where Raleigh is, can't raise enough funds
so that kids living on the same street--even in the same house--can go to schools in the same neighborhood on the same timetable (some schools are year round) It is truly FUBAR.

Yes, there are more Republicans in Raleigh, BUT, they have elected Brad Miller (D) to Congress for the last 4 years. Because of the Research Triangle and
good jobs, the demographics of Raleigh are changing. A lot of people are moving in from elsewhere in the country.

And yes, the rest of NC is more right wing than Raleigh. There have been
several polls recently that suggest a generic Dem could beat a generic
Repub in the next general election for President. There's a huge military
presence in the State, and these folks have been royally screwed by Bush.
They may not speak of it out loudly and for popular consumption, but the right
person could turn them to vote Dem. They've been abused, and they know it.

I'm optimistic that the Dems can turn NC blue in the next election--and I wouldn't give up that Edwards could be the guy to do it. Elizabeth is loved--regardless of how people feel about John. And there is grudging
admiration for them as a couple, even among Repubs. They also have seen that neither Senators Dole or Burr have served their interest in standing up to Bush.

But Hillary--she would NOT be the person to turn NC blue.

[benEzra]

68. But we have a Dem governor (Mike Easley), and a mostly Dem state administration.

It's not a (D)/(R) thing, so much as poor choice of national positions to run on. For example, Easley is pro-gun-rights, while Kerry/Edwards ran on a strong ban-more platform, which is a guaranteed bomb in this state. Democrat Easley won 55%/45%, elected by the same voters who rejected Kerry/Edwards 45%/55%. So don't write the state off.

[The Gunslinger]

76. I'm surpprised that Easley is governor.

There must be a little more support for the left in Western NC. Thats a good thing. Carter also won NC in 76 I believe.

[Jamastiene]

86. Easley is another one of the Republican Lite Democrats, IMHO.

Many many of his stances are more in line with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. The idea here is to shift the focus to a more progressive union, not just get any person who is registered Democrat into office. Centrists who play to the Republicans are not the answer. What would be the point if there is no difference between the two parties?

[KoKo]

100. You mean "Silent Easley...Absent Easley....Easley who doesn't like "apperances and meetings."

Best to say about Easley is that he kept the "DOLE/BURR" wing of the Party from TOTALLY TAKING OVER...so he was a CARETAKER for the DEM FLAME...that's been "hiding light under the Bushchel."

Easley was GREAT for Real Estate Interests and so much of NC has been "Developed" (over-developed) under his REGIME that has brought in Florida and Northeast Transplants to our shores and mountains that one can hardly fault him for bringing in "retirees" and others who will need "Sevice Jobs" and that will replace the Industry Jobs in Textiles and Furniture" that were lost due to Dem/Clinton NAFTA/GATT Trade Policies. Easley had been a "Silent Legend" who has morphed NC Industries to compete in the New Global Economy...and the Real Estate, Hedge Fund, Blackwater, Military-Industrial Complex, and the CIA Rendition Planes that flew out of Kinston, NC allowing Torture for many Innocent

It could have been worse with Dole/Burr....

So...suppose we should be thankful that Easley never did anything for Progressive Dems but at least he kept the "Hitler Interests" of his foes at bay for awhile.

For "small favors" in the Bushie Times...we might need to have some gratitude.

[ribrepin]

97. I was reading a blog from a woman in western North Carolina in 2004

I was interesting. This woman thought Teresa Kerry was "da bomb." Really liked the woman. She was luke warm on John Kerry until the swiftboating. She then thought he was a traitor, but still liked Teresa a lot.

She hated John Edwards with the heat of a 1000 suns from the get go. This woman claimed to be a republican, but a luke-warm one. I think if Teresa was heading the ticket, she would have voted for her.

I like Edwards well enough, but I think the president must be able to win their state.

This blog was interesting regarding Katrina too. There were a lot of contradictions, though I think she was sincere. I suspect this is the type of person who can be turned from R to D. I just don't know how.

[bamacrat]

72. Answers to your questions.

1. How vulnerable have the crimes and failures of the Bush years made the GOP in the South?
The GOP hasn't been hurt very bad because people seem to blame the dems for not fully backing the pres.
2. Which of those scandals and fiascoes has, or could have, the most resonance with southern voters?
None of them, the bushwastikkkas adorn everything, he is king to many.
3. How much anti-war sentiment is there in the South?
Among the left, alot. With the right I think it is growing just because they realize how stupid they sound by still saying Saddam was a part of 9/11.
4. How important is it that a Southerner be on the ticket?
We need a real southern person on our side ala. Bill Clinton, but until then probably won't matter.
5. Why didn't Al Gore get support in the South, even in Tennessee?
He's too smart and well spoken. Also for some reason poor people in the South really love the republican platform. :shrug:
6. How much is religion a litmus test in the South? Is it enough to be privately religious, or do you have to be outspoken about it? If you're a non-Christian are you a non-starter in the South?
You can't win in the south without the christian vote, and yes you need to be vocal about it, why else would Obama, and Hilliary come to churches in Alabama? Because of what happened in the 60's? NO, to get the southern christian vote.
7. How much do Southern voters actually care about issues like gay marriage and abortion?
Abortion lost a lot of steam when other states started allowing gays to wed. That is the biggest thing the Dems will have to overcome in the most homophobic area in the country. If the bible had said men and men it would be ok, but it doesnt so the lesbian thing is still cool just so long as they dont want the same rights as a straight woman.
8. What progressive issues do or could resonate with Southern voters?
Universal Healthcare - majority in the south poor without adequate healthcare.

[lwcon]

79. "because people seem to blame the dems for not fully backing the pres."

Yeah, Bush has had a lot of trouble getting his legislation passed with that Democratic majority the last few years. ;-)

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[shortcake]

80. Gore lost WV because he didn't

campaign there. We couldn't get yard signs or buttons to give away at Dem headquarters. The Party picked up and left. After the election Bush was in WV every time you turned around.

Foxes in the Henhouse is a really good book about this.

[MasonJar]

82. Tennessee was a place of incredible fraud in the 2000 election

due to that other native son, the rich Dr. Frist, who of course was able to out doctor Terry's on sight doctors, whose family insurance powerhouse cheated in big numbers on Medicare (and got caught and fined) and who personally lied that he had had taken mandatory medical education requirements that he had in fact never taken. Frist, who was chairman of Bush campaign in 2000 in Tenn., pulled the same fraud that Jeb pulled in Fla. He sent out notices in democratic areas with the wrong election date; he set up raod blocks to intimidate minority voters and also purged dem voters from the election lists. Bill Frist is white trash just like George W. It will never matter how much money or influence the two have. In the South, we label these type of losers white trash.

[RedTail Wolf]

88. Long Haired Country Boy

Being in the deep South I think it will take years to make progress. I really get angry when people say we don't work hard for the
party. Ever sweat-ed in 98 degree weather going door to door with the humidity hovering around 80-90%e ? We work hard. The deck is stacked against us. I think we are seeing some signs of change the more the chimp screws up. John Edwards is coming to my city soon and I'll be front and center . Edwards is well received down here. Watch this dark horse Southern boy take on the giants of the North.
We'll get it back, it's just a matter of time. So cut us some slack, we work our butts of and get very little thanks for it. My 2 cents.

RedTail Wolf
WaDo

[outofbounds]

89. Typical southern responses to your questions.

1.What crimes you talking about boy? WMD’s ? They found them degraded gases that Saddam used to kill all them thousands of Kurds. Mass Destruction is not limited to buildings, if you have a weapon that can kill as many people as a mass murderer has killed that is a WMD. Let someone chunk those canisters in your neighborhood see what you have to say about that. If Saddam didn’t want to pay the piper he shoulda let them UN inspectors do their job and complied wid dem resolutions. (I doubt they would have used the word complied though.)

2.Huh?

3.5. I think there were five people at the last anti war rally on the court house steps. Do people like the war no, but they feel it’s necessary to stabilize the region. And our president along with leaders from several other countries went in to this and we aint gonna turn on him in tough times. More like (I aint about to go protest this war and have my boss or friends see me standing out there wid dem late bloomin flower children.)

4.Who cares as long as he is a Christian with morals and values.

5.He lacks strength and the guts to stick up fer our country. I mean what did Clinton do, he gave the Chinese technology fer missiles n such. Hell might as well just give em the keys to the White house fer cryin out loud. You talkin about that global warmin fruitcake with the superhuge powerbill what says its ok cause he buys offsets?

6.You got a problem with God boy? (Steps back a couple feet) strike you down you devil worshippin sum bitch. Religion is king. We have 1 church for every 25 people. 1 church for every 100 acres of land. 10 churches for every red light.

7.Why you wanna kill yer kid? You shouldda thought about that when you was frolickin' about indecent in the back seat of bubba’s Chevy you hussy. God has a special plan fer that youngin and yer off to kill it, you are one sorry woman. You’re a queer? Boy? Well don’t come around here spreadin your perverted ways to me or mine boy. What are you sick boy? Hey Scooter, Jimbo, get over here and lets pray fer this sick weirdo child of the devil, he needs fixin in the worst kinda way.

8.Global Warmin’? Yeah its hot in the summer, always has been. As ya get older it just feels warmer. Things go in cycles you have warm weather you have cooler weather been goin on fer years. You tryin to tell me WE are screwin up the weather? Have you lost yer ever lovin mind boy? Boy, you can’t listen to that non sense. Member when eggs were bad fer ya? Den 5 years later all of a sudden they is ok! Same here. Its nuthin more than “scientist” getting grants from da government instead of real jobs. If they ever prove da globe is warmin den they don’t get no more grant money boy. Is ya stupid?
Gay marriage? What the hell fer? That’s just sick. Satan plain n simple.

Democrat’s are you kiddin me boy? They wanna take yer guns so you can’t protect you a yorn. They just want religion banished boy, they wan’t to do away with Christmas. They don’t want God in the pledge of allegiance, did you hear me boy? They think gay people are ok and should be able to get married in front o God and everybody. They think God aint real and that we was monkeys a long time ago. Do you believe that boy? Huh? DO YA? They think Mexicans should be able to move right in and take over. Do ya know why that is boy? So they can get votes. So they can stay in power and spread this shit everywhere! In case you never noticed most Democrats are yankees from big cities, forced to live in close quarters with differnt kinds of folks from all over the place, places that dont fear God. Thier values lost in the mix just get along. They do this cause they don't believe in God boy. This way they think they wont have to face thier creator, oh but they will boy, they will.

Before you start flaming, read the disclosure.
Disclosure
This does not speak for me. This also doesn't speak for a lot of southerners. But these views can be heard regularly from peoples employers neighbors and friends.

[nealmhughes]

90. If I might join the fray as a trilingual (Southern, Yankee and BBC conversant) contestant:

I was born in as far North in North Alabama as one can get and not be in Tennessee. I went to high school in Middle Tennessee, I then was in the Navy in Idaho, Florida, Scotland and Connecticut (but I lived in RI) then worked and lived 5 years on Long Island, then 3 in Omaha before school back in Alabama and work here (Florence, Tuscaloosa for grad school and Montgoemry). I see not one monolithic South at all, which people would have us to believer. It is as assinine as believing there is a monolithic "California" when one has the LA Metrosprawl, San Diego, the Bay, the various agricultural areas and far Northern California. Other than a state government, what does Anaheim have in common with Humbolt and Bakersfield and Bishop? Not much.
The same goes in the South. What does Miami have in common with Memphis? Both are humid in the summer and have a majority population of color or "hispanic" roots. What does my home town whose major employers are retail, a university and health care and has always been Democratic and the first in Alabama to willingly integrate its public institutions and retail operations and is pro-union, worshipping at the feet of FDR for TVA and as yellow dog as can be have in common with a hellhole suburbia like Shelby County, an exurb of Bham? Not much except for a state government. We don't even get the same TV channels or radio. We go to Nashville and Huntsville for concerts and heart operations, they go to Bham. They drive SUVs and vote Republican and attend megachurches, we are Catholic, Methodist and Church of Christ and Episcopal. Some Baptists, but not there. They are hardcore megachurch Baptists.
And that is only a few counties away! Night and day. Even our accents are different.
There is no megalithic South. It is a social construction, which is used by some as an artificial "us against them" political tactic, just as the Hapsburgs used the Hungarians against the Croats and the Croats against the Serbs and the Serbs against the Albanians . . .
By and large, the South is notoriously ill educated at large, and I ought to know, I taught the little darlings for 3 years at UA in History 101. But it is also prevelant in the North as well. If there is a North. I only once saw open racism in a restaurant in my life, and it was in Idaho, when a "white" group wearing nametags that identified them all as "bishops" in a large western denomination that may or may not have found golden tablets in a cow pasture in NYS vocally asked to be moved from their table so as not to "have to sit close to them". "Them" were a family of Mexican-Americans celebrating a christening, or so I gather from the baby's white lace gown. When the restaurant did not respond kindly, they took to every anti-Mexican sentiment I've ever heard, short of profanity itself to loudly protest and leave without paying their bills even though food was on the table.
Who used to wake me up when working 12 hour days and trying to squeeze in a few hours sleep in Idaho to missionize me? Not Southern Baptists! Yankee Mormons!
Ergo, all the West is infested with Yankee Mormon racists who vote Republcian. A hellhole, the west is. Progressive antithesis.
What rot.
This entire thread is stupid, filled with generalizations and anecdotal "evidence" and trying to refight the Civil War and reargue Reconstruction.
What is wrong with the South? Apathy. Ennui. People overworked, underpayed and underread but too proud to admit it. A gang of old fat white male lawyers and old fat black preachers who hold our party in thralldom. An entire section of the country that went from self-sufficient farms and a small cash crop/livestock rearing to industraliztion overnight in WWII doesn't help things. The South is by and large Scots-Irish/English peasant culture with modern accoutremnts.
Someone once said why is the South different is that "We have an vast indigenous peasantry."
Actually they were wrong, we have a vast indegenous yeomanry. Huge difference. Until the North realizes that, it will continue to think of the South as "backwards."

[The Count]

91. I'll take the Fifth (question): massive vote fraud in Tennessee (and Georgia) in 2000

We simply don't know whether Gore did or didn't get support (but he certainly got much more that showed up in the count)

[outofbounds]

92. Florida as well

I remember hear on the 6 o'clock news how ballots were lost in Jacksonville as well as a few other cities. Living in between Jax and Savannah both are local news. Trying to get southerners to see why we need Dem's in office is hard enough, to see what DUers think of us is demoralizing if you let it get under your skin. I don't because a lot of people are well educated but lack common sense.

[treestar]

94. It is unfortunate that one region of the country has so much

sway over the rest of us - how does that happen?

Reading this thread makes me wish the South had been allowed to secede.

Maybe it is the electoral college system that allows a block of states, two of them very populous, to combine with a majority of electoral votes?

Nobody talks about worrying about what anyone else things or trying to keep/get them into the party.

[poorinnaples]

95. Even though...

I truly believe the 2004 vote was most seriously rigged, but since no one has succeeded in proving it, I would suggest you review this map, & begin to understand, it might not be just a "southern thing". in fact Florida's literally crawling with "Yankees", possibly outnumbering actual Florida natives, as is the case, in some other "red states".

Since, like it or not, the possibility still exists, that we Democrats got our asses handed to us, in 2004, it might be as simple as, "Houston, we have a problem" (i.e. change the platform). Better safe, than sorry.

Close only wins in horseshoes, & hand grenades...maybe time to re-visit the "platform", & blow the Repubs away, forever & a day...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

[treestar]

102. The midwest and Ohio/Illinois

look just as important. Ohio was the "funny" state in 2004, too.

[Geek_Girl]

99. I live in south east tennessee

I think dems can write off GA, Alabama and Mississippi but I think that if you get a Dem candidate from the South like John Edwards the dems could possibly pick up some of the Southern States.

1. I work in North Georgia and I see allot of "freedom isn't" free type of bumper stickers in the parking lot. My office is filled with middle aged male republicans that spot off allot of republican BS. I've pretty much kept my mouth shut since I'm new but I don't think anything is going to sway these people from their ideological bent. I'm leaving to take another job closer to my home and I can't believe I'm saying this but Tennessean are far more progressive (even the conservative ones) than these folks in North Georgia.

2. Where I live in TN I think the War is really starting to wear on people, high gas prices and the immigration issue is a biggie. In North Georgia the immigration issue would be the biggie.

3. In TN I see more and more of an anti war sentiment.

4. I think it's the only way Dems are going to pick up southern states. Unfortunately Southerns have a very negative view of Northerners. Northerners tend to look down on them and talk down to them. Plus some are still bitter about the whole north south thing. It's all kind of weird to me.

5. Gore lost TN prim arly on one, issue and that was gun control. Folks around here really like guns and they bought into the paranoia that Dems were going to take them away.

6. I think showing Southerners that you are person of faith demonstrates that you are like them. It's important to them it helps them relate better to the candidate.

7. Many Southerners are afraid of gay marriage and feel that abortion is a sin. Its an Important issue to them. But if Dems are smart they can point out to republican supporters that the republican party has had many opportunities to stop gay marriage and ban abortion but have chosen not to and that they have been hoodwinked.

8.Universal health care, financial aid, stopping outsourcing, stopping the war, and immigration and even environmental issues if presented in away that the outdoors man can get behind.

[lwcon]

101. Wow, this has been really instructive

I would love to hear from more of y'all (FYI, I picked up the "y'all" habit from a Latin teacher in Massachusetts who praised the distinctive second-person plural construction).

As we hit 100 responses, here's what this looks like to me...

Much of what I've heard from the southerners here suggests that, despite some signs of demographic and political progress, the Democrats' outlook in the south isn't very rosy in the near future. Some states have more "battleground" potential than others, but few if any will be an easy sell for us donkeys.

It seems that a disturbing number of your neighbors are solidly, blindly predisposed to vote Republican, that rightwing preachers hold (and abuse) a stranglehold over many areas, and that voting fraud is a serious and disempowering reality.

One of the richest veins I've seen here are the thoughts on what issues would most resonate with southern voters. If we do run a candidate who has a prayer, as it were, in parts of the south (say a Gore or an Edwards), I hope someone will share these ideas with him/her (and there's a follow-up question... could it be a "her"?)

I appreciate the honest commentary and the constructive approach that rose from the ashes of a flame war. Thanks so much for sharing detailed and uncensored assessments of the reality on the ground.

FWIW, I truly don't think that when northern DUers gripe about "the South" they mean it as a put-down to progressives who are fighting the good fight, but rather they're referring to the people who right now outnumber you good folks.

Please do keep fighting for us, and we'll keep fighting for you. Those electoral votes are a powerful force in American politics, and with all my heart I hope y'all (there I go again) and we all can help bring them home.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[johnaries]

104. Al Gore didn't win TN because he didn't campaign here.

His "advisors" thought TN was wrapped up because Al was a Native Son, so they didn't even try to do anything here.

Obviously, they were wrong.

[DFW]

105. As a southerner who went to school in the north...

I can say that I have read a lot of widely varying views of
the South here, many of which represent a part of the picture,
just as liberal peaceful non-religious people in rural Vermont
are just as much New Englanders as Irish Catholic rednecks in
South Boston.

They're all part of the picture, and none of them can be taken as
the whole picture. If there's corruption in Tennessee and Florida
election processes, it's nothing they couldn't have learned from
Daley in Chicago in the 1960s or Tammany Hall in the 1930s. The results
were far more disastrous on a national and international scale, but
electoral fraud didn't originate in the South in 2000--it just got
upgraded to adapt to the times, and we were so trusting, we didn't figure
they would be THAT corrupt, which, of course, is why they got away with it.

Yes, there are many pockets of irrational fanatical reactionaries in the
South, but there are many such pockets in Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, you get
the picture: we don't have a monopoly in the South. It's nothing education
and a decent economic upswing wouldn't cure.

I know, I know----to dream the impossible dream..........

Still, this here is one Southern boy that isn't giving up so easily on us.