New DNC Chair?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
I figured. Bush gets a pass, because *of course* the New England Liberal would be worse.

-Arrian

I am glad you understand.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by PLATO




Most simply feel that Kerry would spend as much as W and would also increase taxes. Lesser of two evils on fiscal conservatism.

The lesser of two evils, before anything else, is to not run astronomical deficits.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The lesser of two evils, before anything else, is to not run astronomical deficits.

I agree that the deficit is unacceptable. I disagree that Kerry would do any better.

[GePap]

Re: Re: Re: Re: New DNC Chair?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That strategy seems to be workng like gangbusters thus far.

The only state we need is Florida- beyond that, what is the point? Democrats should concentrate on places like Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado, which are growing.

[Arrian]

If that had been the only issue in this election, I may have agreed, PLATO, that Kerry was not better than Bush (though I think he *may* have been). Part of the problem, of course, is that both the Senate and House are Republican - offering no check on Bush, but if Kerry had been elected, he would have faced an opposition Congress and had a tough time getting anything done (like, say, reversing Bush's idiotic budgetary policy).

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian
If that had been the only issue in this election, I may have agreed, PLATO, that Kerry was not better than Bush (though I think he *may* have been). Part of the problem, of course, is that both the Senate and House are Republican - offering no check on Bush, but if Kerry had been elected, he would have faced an opposition Congress and had a tough time getting anything done (like, say, reversing Bush's idiotic budgetary policy).

-Arrian

I will agree with this. A "loyal opposition" is a good thing sometimes.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by PLATO


I agree that the deficit is unacceptable. I disagree that Kerry would do any better.

I thought I was on your ignore?

[Imran Siddiqui]

In today's South no one gets elected without being pro civil rights.

I could point to Trent Lott .

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I thought I was on your ignore?

I took ya off about a week before the election.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In today's South no one gets elected without being pro civil rights.

I could point to Trent Lott .

In today's South almost no one gets elected without being pro civil rights.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You are right that since the 1960's and 1970's the south is a different place. The moved Republican because of racism but they've stayed Republican because they like the conservative enconomic and social messages the Republicans send. In short, racism convinced the south to give Republicans a chance but now that they've tried it they've decided they like Republicans for entirely different reasons.

It's clear that the south of 2004 is very different from the soutn of 1968 or 1972 when outright racists could win majorities in the deep south. I don't see any way a Wallace could get the majority in any southern state today but the fsct remains that when the south seitched this was the major issue. Ski is right that other issues were involved but in the 1960 & 1970's civil rights was the dividing line in the country and especially in the south.

Agreed

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sikander


The breaking of the solid Democrat south began in the Eisenhower administration. You know, the guy who called up the National Guard to enforce Brown vs. the Board of Education. Up to that point it was under Democrats that Jim Crow was created and practiced in the south.

Opposition to civil rights legislation was sadly not limited to either major party. Some Democrats unhappy with their party leadership's support for desegregation split from the party several times, most famously with the Dixiecrats starting in the late forties and continued up until George Wallace's independent run for president was cut short by an assassination attempt in 1972.

Fed up with the Dems for many reasons and no longer held in thrall by Dem tolerance for segregation many former southern Dems defected to the Republican party over time. Their presence revitalized the Republican party in many southern states for the first time since reconstruction, and others who weren't primarily segregationists were attracted to the Republicans for a host of reasons.

It should be noted however that the Republicans never had a policy for reinstating or tolerating segregation in the south. The newcomers were too few and too new to create this sort of momentum, and as their numbers swelled opposition to desegregation in the south fell even faster. Rather they were attracted by a better idealogical / cultural fit with the Republican party which the disintegration of one party rule in the south made viable.

Interesting how the Republican Party of the nineteenth century before the failure of Reconstruction was the libral party, and at the same time, having many constituents in favor of extending equal rights while the Democratic Party was the conservative party, and was much more centrally opposed to equal rights.

Historically, conservatives have been opposed to equal rights and today that is still the case, with the conservative Republican Party opposed to abolishing second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by MrFun
with the conservative Republican Party opposed to abolishing second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians.

You mean you WANTED to be a second-class citizen? I would think everyone would want to be treated fair and balanced.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I could point to Trent Lott .

What, as a poster child for victimization of the double standard applied to Repubs verses Dems?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

You mean you WANTED to be a second-class citizen? I would think everyone would want to be treated fair and balanced.

No -- we already are second-class citizens and the Republican Party does not want to abolish this second-class citizenship.