Vilification is over the top

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Boris: it works better to deconstruct his "logic".

I thought I was doing that?

[MrFun]

So, is this thread about dead presidents, equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, philosophical truth, moderation in contrast to extremism, or is this about throwing all of these into one big, fvcked up salad??

[Boris Godunov]

Hell, I don't even know anymore.

[chequita guevara]

It's about me being right.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Truman's drop in popularity was almost entirely attributable to his civil rights actions, which pissed off the Dixiecrats who had formerly supported him. The near victory of Dewey was because there was a guy name Thurmond running as a Segregationist who sapped away what was then traditionally Democrat votes in the South. Had Thurmond not ran, Truman would have won in a walk.

I concede. The modern Republican "conservatism" did not begin in 1948. The two party's platform that year were essentially identical. But here is an electoral map from 1948. It is remarkable how this looks just like the 2000 election, does it not, but with the parties reversed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/3/38/ElectoralCollege1948-Large.png

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned


I concede. The modern Republican "conservatism" did not begin in 1948. The two party's platform that year were essentially identical. But here is an electoral map from 1948. It is remarkable how this looks just like the 2000 election, does it not, but with the parties reversed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/3/38/...1948-Large.png

Urm...not really. California, Washington, Illinois, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Massachusettes, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Iowa all went Democratic in 2000, while Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas all went Republican...

[Ned]

Boris, Read that map again. The red states are for Truman and the blue for Dewey. Except for a few states, like California and Minnesota, the blue states all went for Gore and the red states all went for Bush in the last election.

This reflects an historic realignment of the parties since '48.

[Boris Godunov]

Ned, I read the map correctly. You assert the map was the same but reversed, but ALL of the states I listed remained with the party that won them in 1948.

Yes, there was a demographic change, but not a complete one.

[Ned]

Boris, I think we are in substantial agreement then. The blue/red divide, with exceptions, looks a lot like the last election, but with the parties reversed. There are, of course, execption, where California was red then and blue now, Democrat both times.

[Ned]

And, wasn't that one electoral vote in Tennesse for the Dixiecrats cast by Gore's father?

[Boris Godunov]

No, Gore's father was never an elector.

In 1969, Senator Gore voted to accept the electoral vote of Lloyd Bailey of North Carolina, a Republican who voted for Wallace despite Nixon winning the state. There was debate in the Senate on whether or not to accept the vote. Gore's rationale was that the elector is, in the end, an independent agent and can, barring state election law, vote for whom he pleases. Bailey's vote was affirmed 58-33.

[MrFun]

For the love of Jesus -- how did we get to talking about Gore's father now!?!?

[Q Classic]

moderation, at least how i practice it, is to take both paths and either seek a suitable integration that leads to a progressive outcome, or follow one of the more partisan paths to establish the same.

yes, i am a moderate. my political views are scattered over the spectrum, and i detest those who hew too closely to party lines, disengaging their brains from constant criticism and reevaluation of their core beliefs. to fail to do so is illogical on the basis that society is in constant flux.

this is why, che, you seem to be absolutely furious with me on the topic of social security, and why here, your anger is completely misplaced because i'm completely in agreement--in favor of gay marriage.

oh, ned, btw: eisenhower was the president who didn't have the balls or the political will to eliminate the north koreans. truman might have divided it and fired macarthur, but that's no reason for eisenhower to stop fighting the good fight.

===

as for political vilification: fundies are still bad, mmkay? they will villify anything they can that does not agree with their world view.

to stoop to their level is a tragedy that ought to be avoided.

yes, they are bigots. that does not mean you ought to dignify them with your attention.

[MrFun]

Q -- we give the fundies our "attention" in order to refute their bigoted statements.

[Q Classic]

true: but then, you don't need to stoop to their level and smear them as well.

that's the trap you see coulter falling in to. she'd be a lot easier to take --albeit wrong on many things-- if she wasn't so... "liberal" (according to her definition).