I spent more than 12 years in the Army, as a 'grunt'. As I write this
I hear a C-17 flying low overhead, either into or out of the airfield
on the military base where I worked as a civilian for many years
before I retired. I spent several years in the Far East, Europe, and
several months in the Persian Gulf region. I remember what it was
like to drive or walk down the street in a foreign country and have
the local people smile and wave at me and not have to wonder if they
really were happy to see me, or if they had a weapon behind their
back. I also remember what it was like to see hostile and angry looks
on the faces of some of these same people - this is what King George
and L'il Richard have done for America.
Our country once had friends around the world. As the dust was still
settling on Manhattan, September 11, 2001, people and their leaders
around the world spoke out against the senseless inhumanity of the
attack on the Twin Towers. They offered us help and sympathy and
support. We didn't ask for these words or these gestures... we didn't
have to, this was purely and simplely what friends and neighbors did
in times of trouble and crisis.
George W. Bush has alienated most of the leaders of the nations that
were thefirst and the loudest in their support of America after that
tragic day. Those few who've taken active part in the invasion and
occupation of Iraq have largely done so out of fear and frustration:
Fear of alienating the Bush government and frustration at King
George's stubborn unwillingness to talk to anyone, starting with
Saadam Hussein!
Now, Mr. Bush is trying to fond some way to justify military action
against Iran, either by provoking them into some rash act or by
persuading the rest of the world that Iran constitutes some threat to
America. And, he won't talk to anyone, including the Iranian
government.
If President Bush pushes America into an armed conflict with Iran, it
will be the biggest foreign policy failure in this country's history,
because it personify an age-old wisdom: The enemy of my enemy is my
friend. If pushed into what they will see as a war for national
survival, Iran will bury it's religious and political differences with
Iraq and make common cause against the US and any ally foolish enough
to hang on, and this will turn the entire Persian Gulf region into a
war zone.
In addition to the massive destruction around the Persian Gulf and the
loss of innocent human lives, the true price of a barrel of crude oil
will rise so fast and so far that the industrialized world will be
staggered.
And, only a fool would think that all of this could not result in a
major terrorist attack on America. There are too many uncontrolled
tactical nuclear weapons on the market, and the people of the oil-rich
nations of the Persian Gulf have their price. Such a threat -
nevermind an actual attack - would only strengthen and expand the
extra-legal authority of Homeland Security and US Military
authorities, at the expense of our Constitutional rights. Only
recently, the US Appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that US
civilian courts do NOT have the authority to determine the legality of
the detention of those the military hold in Guantanamo and other
facilities. If this ruling stands, it is a frightening repudiation of
a major tenet of the Bill of Rights.
If any or all of this events and actions sound eerily familiar, many
of us have read about these events and their consequences long ago -
George Orwell wrote about them in "1984."
I would like to thank him for contributing this, but he will remain anonymous. Just the discussion of warrantless wiretapping remains me of my two favorite quotes,
"When Facism comes to American it will be drapped in a flag and carrying a bible"-Upton Sinclair. And, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A question to Democrats; and probe into the heart and mind of a Populist
When do you plan override Bush's tax cuts, which primarily favored the wealthiest Americans, and partially led to the disastrous deficit we currently have. To me, at least, it's been part of a larger Republican platform that makes the Rich Richer, and the Poor Poorer. I find it interesting, (and I'm just using the numbers that I think were the ones they used in the articles that I've read on this, they're not exact and I won't claim that they are), that the richest 1 percent of Americans hold more than half of the wealth. Yet, I've suggested to Republicans I know that wouldn't it fairer to tax these people, who are literally rolling in money, higher than those scrounging for a balanced budget and they act so outraged. They act utterly infuriated at the thought of trying to get a larger cut of a 600,000 dollar budget that a 16,000 dollar one.
If anyone doesn't have a job, or doesn't retire well off, it's they're fault for being lazy and immoral. It's the arugment I've heard so often, and it's what I ahve to hear from my grandparents in every argument over politics.
They oppose the minimum wage, and they tell me that inflation will immediately completely counteract the raise, yet the Federal Reserve, and past trends dating back 40 years say otherwise.
They so ardently believe in the trickle down theory, and again here, my numbers aren't the exact numbers, yet for every dollar that goes directly into a poorer Americans pocket, the rich person would pocket an additional ten thousand. Not only that, but I find it offensive that a poor American should regarded like that. The theory itself sounds like the way you'd treat a dog, to let it scrounge for the crumbs from the table, to reluctantly allow it to get a little food, the trickle down theory treats the rich like nobility and the poor like a dog who you have to throw a bone to.
The true economic prosperity of the U.S. lies in neither free trade or isolationism, but in not making idiotic, ignorant, and absolutely pointless trade agreements like CAFTA. (I'll post you all a little essay about that sometime soon. NAFTA was highly beneficial, especially since we have a very prosperous trading industry with Mexico and Canada, and they both are major consumers of our products. But, free trade Republicans like Grover Norquist, would have us going around with random, insignificant countries and creating pointless free trade agreements, which is what I oppose, not free trade itself. What good does CAFTA do, it creates a few thousand more jobs in port cities on the Gulf, but causes farmers and manufacturing industries billions of dollars, and tens of thousands ofjobs. It does signifcantly more harm than good overall.
We need to stop this insanity. We need to pass stricter trade embargo's on China that don't allow it to ship it's products to other countries, then straight to us, hurting our manufacturing industry. We need to pass to lower the amount of products China's able to sell us period, right now I find it's outrageously high, especially for a country whose workers are more often than not under what are bascailly slave labor conditions.
We have to protect our manufacturing industry, because it is the core of the American Economy, and has been since the dawn of the twenieth century. Republican policies have led to it's extreme decline. I'm outraged that Textile companies like Ralph Lauren Polo, Tommy Hilfiger, and virtually all other designer, or non designer brands are allowed to make a two to three hundred percent profit on their products, that sounds like price gouging to me. The same way it sounds like price gouging to allowing oil companies to sell oil at 60 dollars a gallon and make 40 billion dollar profits on it. I think gase prices could have been set at two dollars a gallon throughout this summer and there not have been any shortages, and the oil companies, like ExxonMobile, still could have made an sizable, and ungodly five or six billion dollar profit.
The best way to protect American industry is to outlaw the import of all products made by workers not making a standard five dollar an hour wage. This will stop the heartless outsourcing of American jobs to China, India and other parts of East Asia to workers working for ten cents an hour. People wonder why he have a huge trade deficit, well it's there because we've sold out our Manufacturing industry for the profit of investors and the rich, and to save a buck or two in our own wallet here and there. We've sent it over seas, what used to be made in American is made in Malaysia. We're importing goods from the same companies and brands that used to make their goods in America.
At the same time, many of our key exports are also being made overseas, instead of in America. I think that the problem is so severe, that I would strongly support an economic regulation that basically forbid corporations from shipping jobs overseas to below minimum wage countries, and forbid imports from those countries. That's what's grossly unfair to the U.S. The logic is, get rid of the savings, get rid of the outsourcing, and cause more companies to come back to the U.S., as well as get many countries to force business there to pay there employees a better wage.
And now, I have to have a quick rant against Walmart. There employee benefits that are supposedly so great, well in recent years they've been over hiring so that no one but the management gets enough hours to qualify as a full time worker, and subsequently, for those benefits. Not to mention, even regular full time employees are treated like shit. Walmart dismantled it's national meat slicing, (I believe it was), department just because a single sector in Florida was unionized. The way the company treats Unions is in itself repulsive. It's been proven from studies; Walmart actually destroys 1.5 jobs for every job that it creates, and the jobs it creates pay less, and have fewer benefits. The fact of the matter is to me at least; being cheap is what is destroying the culture of this country. They've led to the destruction of the locally owned pharmcy and grocery store, and the sellout of our manufacturing sectors to cheapo overseas labor. Why, I sound like a regular modern Huey Long don't I. In any case, this little tangent on Walmart has gone on long enough.
Those are just my thoughts on the major Economic issues, what are yours, do you have any thoughts on my thoughts?
Democrats reading this, even if you're a Northerner, we do have a Carptebaggers section, (or at least we will), you might want to check or group out. Here's the google grou to join: http://groups.google.com/group/southern-democrats . Also, if you google Southern Democrats Club my out dated and poorly designed freely hosted site is still up. While the grpahics are bad, and it's not user friendly, it is very informative, and gives a very good description of our group.
If anyone doesn't have a job, or doesn't retire well off, it's they're fault for being lazy and immoral. It's the arugment I've heard so often, and it's what I ahve to hear from my grandparents in every argument over politics.
They oppose the minimum wage, and they tell me that inflation will immediately completely counteract the raise, yet the Federal Reserve, and past trends dating back 40 years say otherwise.
They so ardently believe in the trickle down theory, and again here, my numbers aren't the exact numbers, yet for every dollar that goes directly into a poorer Americans pocket, the rich person would pocket an additional ten thousand. Not only that, but I find it offensive that a poor American should regarded like that. The theory itself sounds like the way you'd treat a dog, to let it scrounge for the crumbs from the table, to reluctantly allow it to get a little food, the trickle down theory treats the rich like nobility and the poor like a dog who you have to throw a bone to.
The true economic prosperity of the U.S. lies in neither free trade or isolationism, but in not making idiotic, ignorant, and absolutely pointless trade agreements like CAFTA. (I'll post you all a little essay about that sometime soon. NAFTA was highly beneficial, especially since we have a very prosperous trading industry with Mexico and Canada, and they both are major consumers of our products. But, free trade Republicans like Grover Norquist, would have us going around with random, insignificant countries and creating pointless free trade agreements, which is what I oppose, not free trade itself. What good does CAFTA do, it creates a few thousand more jobs in port cities on the Gulf, but causes farmers and manufacturing industries billions of dollars, and tens of thousands ofjobs. It does signifcantly more harm than good overall.
We need to stop this insanity. We need to pass stricter trade embargo's on China that don't allow it to ship it's products to other countries, then straight to us, hurting our manufacturing industry. We need to pass to lower the amount of products China's able to sell us period, right now I find it's outrageously high, especially for a country whose workers are more often than not under what are bascailly slave labor conditions.
We have to protect our manufacturing industry, because it is the core of the American Economy, and has been since the dawn of the twenieth century. Republican policies have led to it's extreme decline. I'm outraged that Textile companies like Ralph Lauren Polo, Tommy Hilfiger, and virtually all other designer, or non designer brands are allowed to make a two to three hundred percent profit on their products, that sounds like price gouging to me. The same way it sounds like price gouging to allowing oil companies to sell oil at 60 dollars a gallon and make 40 billion dollar profits on it. I think gase prices could have been set at two dollars a gallon throughout this summer and there not have been any shortages, and the oil companies, like ExxonMobile, still could have made an sizable, and ungodly five or six billion dollar profit.
The best way to protect American industry is to outlaw the import of all products made by workers not making a standard five dollar an hour wage. This will stop the heartless outsourcing of American jobs to China, India and other parts of East Asia to workers working for ten cents an hour. People wonder why he have a huge trade deficit, well it's there because we've sold out our Manufacturing industry for the profit of investors and the rich, and to save a buck or two in our own wallet here and there. We've sent it over seas, what used to be made in American is made in Malaysia. We're importing goods from the same companies and brands that used to make their goods in America.
At the same time, many of our key exports are also being made overseas, instead of in America. I think that the problem is so severe, that I would strongly support an economic regulation that basically forbid corporations from shipping jobs overseas to below minimum wage countries, and forbid imports from those countries. That's what's grossly unfair to the U.S. The logic is, get rid of the savings, get rid of the outsourcing, and cause more companies to come back to the U.S., as well as get many countries to force business there to pay there employees a better wage.
And now, I have to have a quick rant against Walmart. There employee benefits that are supposedly so great, well in recent years they've been over hiring so that no one but the management gets enough hours to qualify as a full time worker, and subsequently, for those benefits. Not to mention, even regular full time employees are treated like shit. Walmart dismantled it's national meat slicing, (I believe it was), department just because a single sector in Florida was unionized. The way the company treats Unions is in itself repulsive. It's been proven from studies; Walmart actually destroys 1.5 jobs for every job that it creates, and the jobs it creates pay less, and have fewer benefits. The fact of the matter is to me at least; being cheap is what is destroying the culture of this country. They've led to the destruction of the locally owned pharmcy and grocery store, and the sellout of our manufacturing sectors to cheapo overseas labor. Why, I sound like a regular modern Huey Long don't I. In any case, this little tangent on Walmart has gone on long enough.
Those are just my thoughts on the major Economic issues, what are yours, do you have any thoughts on my thoughts?
Democrats reading this, even if you're a Northerner, we do have a Carptebaggers section, (or at least we will), you might want to check or group out. Here's the google grou to join: http://groups.google.com/group/southern-democrats . Also, if you google Southern Democrats Club my out dated and poorly designed freely hosted site is still up. While the grpahics are bad, and it's not user friendly, it is very informative, and gives a very good description of our group.
Friday, February 16, 2007
A Tale of Two Republicans
Just an interesting expose on two different Republicans in the news today.
'...The powerful chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, Warren Chisum, doesn't even believe that the earth revolves around the sun.'
Still, it's enough to set the world a-spinning that the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the most powerful committee in the House, distributed to legislators a memo pitching crazed wingers who believe the earth stands still -- doesn't spin on its axis or revolve around the Sun -- that Copernicus was part of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the Old Testament.
Even Roy Moore, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson believe the earth revolves around the sun.
Here's a section from a site that he was telling legislators to go to:
'Levitating Globe
"An electromagnet and computerized sensor hidden in its
display stand cause the Earth to levitate motionlessly
in the air."
Could God have engineered something like that for the real Earth?
The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed:
The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.
The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.
Today's cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".
The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism
in every aspect of man's "knowledge" about the Universe, the
Earth, and Himself.
Take your time.
Check it all out.
Decide for yourself.'
Here's a link to that site, if you want it: FixedEarth.com
And, the scary thing is that these people truly believe what they're saying is true. In his letter to other legislators, he said that Copercnician science was a Jewish Conspiracy to underimine the Old Testament. Never mind that the old testament by and large was written by Jewish prohpets and writers, and that Christ was Jewish, he was the Jewish messiah, the real one, I believe. techincally Christians could be described as Jews who subscribe to the first coming of Christ, and the other Jews don't subscribe to the coming of Christ. So not only does he display rampant insanity, but also anti-semitism, and for no good reason.
Here is yet anohter Republican lawmaker, one who used to be a Democrat, give a bigoted speech and not get called out on national news for it. This isn't the first time either, vrigil Goode's got a good long, hatred towards muslims. This man shouldn't be a congressman, and he givesthe residents of his moderate South Virginia district a bad name. In his speech against a nonbinding resolution against the troop surge in Iraq, he made these comments:
'During today's House debate on Iraq, virulently anti-Muslim Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) said supporting the anti-escalation resolution would "aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country." Moreover, he said, "I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see 'In God We Trust' stricken from our money and replaced with 'In Muhammad We Trust.'
What is his major malfunction. He's reacting to the present day threat of radical Islam and radical jihad with the intelligence and dignity of a 5 year old. Look at how childish and idiotic his statements are. This is not the way to react to the present threats to America, and Virgil Goode should be impeached from the House. Wonderful Party, inanit.
So what are your thoughts are this?
'...The powerful chairman of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, Warren Chisum, doesn't even believe that the earth revolves around the sun.'
Still, it's enough to set the world a-spinning that the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the most powerful committee in the House, distributed to legislators a memo pitching crazed wingers who believe the earth stands still -- doesn't spin on its axis or revolve around the Sun -- that Copernicus was part of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the Old Testament.
Even Roy Moore, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson believe the earth revolves around the sun.
Here's a section from a site that he was telling legislators to go to:
'Levitating Globe
"An electromagnet and computerized sensor hidden in its
display stand cause the Earth to levitate motionlessly
in the air."
Could God have engineered something like that for the real Earth?
The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed:
The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun.
The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told.
Today's cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science".
The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie.
Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism
in every aspect of man's "knowledge" about the Universe, the
Earth, and Himself.
Take your time.
Check it all out.
Decide for yourself.'
Here's a link to that site, if you want it: FixedEarth.com
And, the scary thing is that these people truly believe what they're saying is true. In his letter to other legislators, he said that Copercnician science was a Jewish Conspiracy to underimine the Old Testament. Never mind that the old testament by and large was written by Jewish prohpets and writers, and that Christ was Jewish, he was the Jewish messiah, the real one, I believe. techincally Christians could be described as Jews who subscribe to the first coming of Christ, and the other Jews don't subscribe to the coming of Christ. So not only does he display rampant insanity, but also anti-semitism, and for no good reason.
Here is yet anohter Republican lawmaker, one who used to be a Democrat, give a bigoted speech and not get called out on national news for it. This isn't the first time either, vrigil Goode's got a good long, hatred towards muslims. This man shouldn't be a congressman, and he givesthe residents of his moderate South Virginia district a bad name. In his speech against a nonbinding resolution against the troop surge in Iraq, he made these comments:
'During today's House debate on Iraq, virulently anti-Muslim Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) said supporting the anti-escalation resolution would "aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country." Moreover, he said, "I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see 'In God We Trust' stricken from our money and replaced with 'In Muhammad We Trust.'
What is his major malfunction. He's reacting to the present day threat of radical Islam and radical jihad with the intelligence and dignity of a 5 year old. Look at how childish and idiotic his statements are. This is not the way to react to the present threats to America, and Virgil Goode should be impeached from the House. Wonderful Party, inanit.
So what are your thoughts are this?
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Our Google Group:
Come to our google group, check around. You can get subscribed to one email a day.
 height="26"/> |
Subscribe to Southern Democrats |
Visit this group |
State of 2007:
I believe that if Democrats are careful and make the right decisions their momentum from 2006 could push them over the top and that in itself could give them a very strong momentum in fundraising and fervor heading into the crucial 2008 election season. There are three distinct states of massive importance, and there could be a fourth, depending on how the courts fall on FL-13.
I believe that if Democrats are careful and make the right decisions their momentum from 2006 could push them over the top and that in itself could give them a very strong momentum in fundraising and fervor heading into the crucial 2008 election season. There are three distinct states of massive importance, and there could be a fourth, depending on how the courts fall on FL-13.
To start of, I’d like to go with my current state of residence, Louisiana. I’ll divide it into two sections; Governorship and legislature.
The Gubernatorialship
I’m utterly through with Kathleen Blanco, and I’ve been one of her most vocal opponents all along. Yes Mississippi did get far more money when it had 60% less damages than Louisiana, but that’s because they had a far, far more complex and comprehensive strategy to get residence back in real homes and rebuild Gulfport and the damaged areas of Biloxi. Looking at our statewide policy, the road home program has been a complete failure at getting either low income, or upper income families to move back. It’s poorly planned, and we’re still paying a private company millions of dollars a year to run the program.
Even bigger than that, I believe, if Blanco’s failure to push insurance companies much harder on reimbursing Louisiana residents. But, Blanco has yet to get a calculated assessment of all infrastructure damages the public needs to deal with, and then have Melancon or Landrieu submit a bill giving the state every penny that it needs.
Mississippi has used the money it’s gotten efficiently. Louisiana has squandered millions by overpaying contractors, and the state’s even diverted millions more back into the general treasury, something the next batch of federal money should have a safeguard against.
But, regardless of anything else, the varied and sketchy reports of a new, 10 billion dollar oil refinery being in the bag, while other economic observers saying it’s more likely to be built in Texas because of better infrastructure and a better business climate disappoints. Toyota appears to have dropped consideration of the Richland Parish Megasite, likely because the infrastructure of Ouachita Parish just isn’t massive enough for a plant employing five thousand people, though the economy here could really use a blast of nitroglycerin to get it started back up again. The Monroe area has lost State Farm and Guide for a total of 1,200 employees laid off, and that’s just in the last year and half. It may be a trading hub, but apparently it was too far out of the way, or connected well enough to the rest of the state to be a viable option.
These were her two big economic growth plans that she wanted to campaign and I was really disappointed to see them lose a great deal of steam. She did get the one billion dollar synthetic fuel plant built in Ascension Parish, (I could be wrong on what Parish it’s in), that will transform lignite deposits in Northwest Louisiana into a useable fuel. But that’s about it.
That’s one reason why I’ve dropped my support of her.
The other is that we have such a fantastic alternate at the moment. Foster Campbell of Bossier City. He’s known for giving the corrupt Democrats, (and the few corrupt Republicans), that control the state hell while he was in the State Senate. He’s been on the Public Services Commission for one term now. But, it is an obscure position, and his district only covers Northwest Louisiana, 1/8th of the state’s population.
But, not only is he a clean, non-establishment candidate, he’s also a fiery populist. I love populists, and I think that Louisiana’s been missing a major one for decades now. Campbell’s the kind of guy I think would stand up for the little guy, to push for economic growth, but also go after insurance companies and fight for small businesses. He’d try to get new corporations to come to Louisiana, while not being subservient to them.
At the moment, I still predict that Blanco will win the primary, (which in Louisiana is one ballot for all parties that goes into a runoff if no one gets 50%. But, Campbell, whom I strongly support, keeps raising money an even stronger rate than his current pace, and runs one hell of a campaign; I wouldn’t be surprised to see him upset Blanco on election night. However, he needs to maintain his status as the only valid anti-Blanco vote for independents and Democrats. He even needs to work to get a good 10-11 percent of the North Louisiana Republican vote to get in.
There won’t a runoff though, if another serious Republican candidate doesn’t jump in to take up 10-12 percent of Jindall’s vote share and hold him down to about 45%. I’m certain that the Republican Party, as centrally and well organized as it is statewide cannot keep at least one Republican from challenging Jindall. There will be at least one Police Juror, (in Louisiana each county is governed by a board called the Police Jury which serves the purpose of a County Executive, County Judge, County Commissioner, etc), but I’m not sure that would be enough to stop Jindall from getting 50% percent in the first election. The good news is that there are several term limited Republican State Senators mulling runs, and another few term limited State Representatives considering as well. The best case scenario is that two Republican state Senators, one State Rep, and three Police Jurors run against Jindall, and he’s held to a flat 40% vote total, and precious Republican resources go to the other Republican candidates.
If it were to go into a runoff between Blanco and Jindall, she will get her ass kicked, she will get a thumpin’, she will lose by twenty points and the Louisiana Democratic party will be shattered and left reeling. The Party will lose half a dozen State House seats in the runoff because of her horrible performance. It would probably lose a Senate seat on top of that.
Foster Campbell, I feel, could win with help from the national party. He’s a new face, and he’s not part of the establishment which Louisiana voters are so sick of. He’s got a populist demeanor, but it’s unlikely that he will outright scare small business away because he was a small business owner for decades. He’s a good campaigner, and he’s a good fundraiser. But, most of all, he exploits Jindall’s Achilles’ heel; North Louisiana.
In recent years, North Louisiana has been very strong for Republicans. Jindall, while beating Blanco by 25 points statewide in a recent independent poll, beat her by only one in North Louisiana. This area is Foster Campbell’s base, while Blanco hails from the lower half of Acadiana, where I grew up (the Lafayette-Lake Charles area, the lower half of Chris John’s old district in the bottom southwest quadrant of the state). The fact that she performs so well there despite here unpopularity and lack of regional connections, speaks volumes, to me at least, on what kind of sweep Campbell could make.
I think, that now that Chris John has demurred, Foster Campbell is our only chance of holding the Louisiana Gubernatorialship, and salvaging the Louisiana Democratic Party.
On the Legislature, Swing State Project poster louisianagirl has far more detail than I will provide. All I will give are my predictions.
I don’t know much about the house, but many close races will go into runoffs, and if Foster Campbell is in the runoff, whether he wins narrowly, or loses narrowly, I predict we lose four seats overall in the State House.
In the State Senate, I say that my Geometry Teacher’s husband Neil Riser beats the Democrat in Noble Ellington’s extremely Rural and Republican district, resulting in a Republican gain. But, several South Louisiana Republicans, originally elected as Democrats, are term limited out, and Democrats have a solid chance of picking up Craig Romero, who challenged Charlie Melancon last year and lost by about a 16 point margin, with a second Democrat in the race too. Thibideaux’s, I believe his name is, seat is also going to be a great target for Democrats. This leaves Democrats with an overall gain of one in the already overwhelmingly Democratic State Senate, while they do lose four seats in the State House, which, considering they won three seats in 2006 special elections, is not a serious loss.
Though I have to say the recent 527 created by Louisiana Republicans under the similar name as a Tom DeLay’s Texas 527, Louisianans for a Republican Majority I believe it’s called, has worried me. There are a lot of conservative districts that are open right now, and this 527 could raise a great deal of money and tip the balance. At any rate, the State House is where all the action, and the only Republican gains are going to be this year. All other statewide officers are running for reelection and are safe bets to win.
Let’s move on to Kentucky. I know nothing about the state of its State Legislature, that’s not an area I know much about. The Bluegrass Report though will have plenty of info on that. I’ll move solely onto the Gubernatorialship.
The Gubernatorialship
Republicans had their chance to destroy the Democratic Party in Kentucky even worse than it was obliterated in Georgia after 2002. They screwed up worse than any sane political pundit could have ever predicted.
After taking over because of Patton’s sex scandal, Gov. Ernie Fletcher has become embroiled in political scandal after political scandal; that has been the mark of his entire governorship. On top of that, he has not gotten any sweeping piece of legislation passed, he’s been complacent on education, he hasn’t balanced the budget, and he has not brought the state into a new era of economic growth. Fletcher hasn’t endeared himself to the Kentucky public in the least, in fact, he’s one of the most unpopular governors in the country, and has had disapprovals in the negatives by double digits for over a year now.
After it appeared she would not run for Governor, Anne Northup threw her hat in the ring, and it seems that she has the blessing of the kingmaker, (or in her case queenmaker), of the Kentucky Republican party, Mitch McConnell. But, she’s barely beating Fletcher outside the MOE in her own internal polls. Here’s a question for you Kentucky people, I’ve been pondering this, does Kentucky have a runoff in primaries? On another note, the conservative Republican party by and large seems to find the accusations purely political and unfounded. That gives Fletcher an opening, and gives Northup an even harder primary.
Anyway, 38 year old State Treasurer Jonathan Miller is easily the frontrunner for the Democratic primary, with the best connections, and strongest statewide name rec. What I like about him is that he could run for McConnell’s seat when it’s likely to be open, in 2014, and still just 45 years old. I think he’s a real rising star in the Kentucky Democratic Party, and has real Presidential potential in the future. He still has stiff challenge from Speaker of the State House, Jody Richards, but I think in the end he’ll overcome her.
Aside from how electable and strong a candidate he is, he’s also not a very conservative Democrat, his opinions are pretty moderate, and he appears to be a pretty good Democrat.
If Northup wins the Republican primary, which I believe is very likely, (unless there is no runoff in Kentucky and Billy Harper takes enough of the anti-Fletcher vote to allow Fletcher to edge Northup out), then this race is going to be close because she’ll rack up a landslide in KY-04, Geoff Davis’ district, and definitely hold Miller to a narrow margin of victory in strongly Democratic KY-03, her old district which is dominated by the liberal city of Louisville, (in fact, KY-03 is the only district in Kentucky that is not primarily suburban/exurban and rural, it’s the only urban district, and, despite Kerry’s weak showing, is reliably and strongly Democratic in statewide and local elections). I don’t think she win her old district, but a strong showing there would definitely require Miller to have a very strong showing in Chandler’s district, Hal Rogers district, (which is really Democratic on a local level, much like it’s neighbor, West Virginia. This district became even more Democratic when it was made to cover all of Eastern Kentucky after the 1992 reapportionment), Ed Barlow’s district, which some have called the most Republican of Kentucky districts, I disagree, and ancestrally Democratic KY-02, Ron Lewis’ district, (which is extremely socially conservative). Still, even with Northup and her infamous campaign savvy, as his opponent, I’d still predict him winning 52-47. With Fletcher, I’d say 59-40.
A quick note on the other statewide offices: Rep. Mike Weaver, who ran against Ron Lewis, is running for State Treasurer, I’d call him the underdog in the Democratic primary. Other statewide offices that are currently open are: Attorney General. I’d say we’ll definitely hold the State House in this great environment, and possibly, just maybe, pick up the State Senate, at the very least we’ll make gains.
I’m going to be brief on Mississippi as well, because, as with Kentucky, my knowledge of politics there is not as extensive and far reaching as I’d like, hell, I’m pissed off because I don’t know much about Louisiana politics after living here a year because the News-Star is the stupidest, shittiest, local newspaper I’ve ever encountered. It has no meat to it, and it’s absolutely useless for reading anything about politics. I don’t think I’ll even try on anything but the Governorship.
The Gubernatorialship
Things are remarkably low key in this race so far, but state Democrats salivating over the rumors of a Mabus/Moore candidacy. Mabus, a former Governor who lost his 1991 reelection campaign to a populist oriented Republican who ended up becoming very unpopular by the end of his two terms, is from North Mississippi and carries his own strengths as a candidate, including name rec. Moore was a popular four term Attorney General who retired in 2003. He’s from Biloxi, and carries great name rec., connections, and a base shared by Barbour.
This is a dream ticket, a dream ticket I’m skeptical will happen. I feel it’s likely that Mabus will jump in the ring, considering how publicly active he’s suddenly become in recent years. But, I don’t feel Moore will jump. I think Moore was through with politics in 2003, and if he did feel like getting in, I don’t think he’d want to take the backseat, even if it would probably only be for one term because of Mabus’ age and health, which could end up being campaign issues.
That’s all there really is to say about the race. This is just a skeleton analysis, because no major Democrat has jumped in to take on Haley Barbour yet. This is skimpy analysis. I normally have a lot more info, but this is the beginning outlook, nothing has happened yet, and there haven’t been any polls. I can offer my current prediction, which is that even our dream ticket, Barbour’s carried over the finish line 52-48 by his Katrina performance, and his campaigning saviness. It is important to keep Barbour sweating and on his heels this election though, that way Republican money there doesn’t go to the state legislature, and Barbour isn’t allowed to rack up a landslide and give Republicans a big gain in both houses. At current, I think the Democrats will keep the Mississippi State Legislature no matter what, though conservative Democrats will continue to give Republicans all but operational control of it.
An interesting side note, we have a great chance of retaking the Governorship when it’s open in 2011 due to term limits. Current Attorney General Jim Hood is popular, and he built a strong coalition to in 2003 to stave off a tough Republican attempt on the open seat, and he’s likely to win reelection in a landslide.
That’s the State of 2007, at the moment. Other states of interest include Virginia and New Jersey where the entire State Legislatures are up for reelection. I think Democrats have a real chance of taking back the Virginia State Senate, and increasing their margins in New Jersey. Those’ll be the sites of heated contests. If courts rule in Jennings favor, and determine that there needs to be a new election, that election will likely be held in November if Jennings can get through the legal system that fast. That would make Florida the site of a major election as well, as a Democratic victory here would vastly increase our momentum going into 2008.
"On the last note, I’m predicting that we’ll win the special election for the State Senate seat in Brooklyn. It’s tomorrow, and I would be shocked to see us lose it. A plurality of voters, by three percentage points, 38-35 I believe, are registered Democrats, and just to help you get a feel of where that puts it Presidentially, several New York Senate districts with a five or six point Republican edge voted for Kerry. I don’t see how we can lose with the New York Times endorsement, the more conservative and widely read in this district Newsday endorsement, and the massive campaign waged for a very strong candidate, County legislature Craig Johnson. Elliot Spitzer is very popular here, and his endorsement, and cutting an ad for Johnson definitely helps. Not to mention that recent corruption investigation that includes Joe Bruno, the Majority Leader of the State Senate, further highlights Spitzer’s calls for reform, and hurts the New York Republican Party. The Democrats have the momentum, not only because of the endorsements, but because of how Democratic last year was, and the leftover momentum that gave us. I think that nation, especially New York, is still in a very Democratic mood, and the New Democratic Congress is very popular so far, only helping the overall mood. These factors align for what I predict will be a 53-47 victory."
That was written on Monday, and posted as a comment on a Republican blogger blog. I add it to this diary just to show that my political predictions are about on base, except when I do get carried away, which happened quite often in 2006, and I was occasionally mislead by what I read on the internet, and bad polling. Of course I may have gotten plain lucky that time.
Anyway, please leave comments if you disagree. Please comment if you know more about the elections than I’ve said. If you agree, and want to write a concurrence, please do so. The following thread is an open thread on any 2007 race, including tomorrow’s crucial special election in New York, and races I left out.
P.S. Please vote in the poll. You can’t imagine how much I hate saying this and hate sounding like a broken record, but I like to know how many people read the diary, so if you read this diary, please take a second and vote in the poll.
I believe that if Democrats are careful and make the right decisions their momentum from 2006 could push them over the top and that in itself could give them a very strong momentum in fundraising and fervor heading into the crucial 2008 election season. There are three distinct states of massive importance, and there could be a fourth, depending on how the courts fall on FL-13.
To start of, I’d like to go with my current state of residence, Louisiana. I’ll divide it into two sections; Governorship and legislature.
The Gubernatorialship
I’m utterly through with Kathleen Blanco, and I’ve been one of her most vocal opponents all along. Yes Mississippi did get far more money when it had 60% less damages than Louisiana, but that’s because they had a far, far more complex and comprehensive strategy to get residence back in real homes and rebuild Gulfport and the damaged areas of Biloxi. Looking at our statewide policy, the road home program has been a complete failure at getting either low income, or upper income families to move back. It’s poorly planned, and we’re still paying a private company millions of dollars a year to run the program.
Even bigger than that, I believe, if Blanco’s failure to push insurance companies much harder on reimbursing Louisiana residents. But, Blanco has yet to get a calculated assessment of all infrastructure damages the public needs to deal with, and then have Melancon or Landrieu submit a bill giving the state every penny that it needs.
Mississippi has used the money it’s gotten efficiently. Louisiana has squandered millions by overpaying contractors, and the state’s even diverted millions more back into the general treasury, something the next batch of federal money should have a safeguard against.
But, regardless of anything else, the varied and sketchy reports of a new, 10 billion dollar oil refinery being in the bag, while other economic observers saying it’s more likely to be built in Texas because of better infrastructure and a better business climate disappoints. Toyota appears to have dropped consideration of the Richland Parish Megasite, likely because the infrastructure of Ouachita Parish just isn’t massive enough for a plant employing five thousand people, though the economy here could really use a blast of nitroglycerin to get it started back up again. The Monroe area has lost State Farm and Guide for a total of 1,200 employees laid off, and that’s just in the last year and half. It may be a trading hub, but apparently it was too far out of the way, or connected well enough to the rest of the state to be a viable option.
These were her two big economic growth plans that she wanted to campaign and I was really disappointed to see them lose a great deal of steam. She did get the one billion dollar synthetic fuel plant built in Ascension Parish, (I could be wrong on what Parish it’s in), that will transform lignite deposits in Northwest Louisiana into a useable fuel. But that’s about it.
That’s one reason why I’ve dropped my support of her.
The other is that we have such a fantastic alternate at the moment. Foster Campbell of Bossier City. He’s known for giving the corrupt Democrats, (and the few corrupt Republicans), that control the state hell while he was in the State Senate. He’s been on the Public Services Commission for one term now. But, it is an obscure position, and his district only covers Northwest Louisiana, 1/8th of the state’s population.
But, not only is he a clean, non-establishment candidate, he’s also a fiery populist. I love populists, and I think that Louisiana’s been missing a major one for decades now. Campbell’s the kind of guy I think would stand up for the little guy, to push for economic growth, but also go after insurance companies and fight for small businesses. He’d try to get new corporations to come to Louisiana, while not being subservient to them.
At the moment, I still predict that Blanco will win the primary, (which in Louisiana is one ballot for all parties that goes into a runoff if no one gets 50%. But, Campbell, whom I strongly support, keeps raising money an even stronger rate than his current pace, and runs one hell of a campaign; I wouldn’t be surprised to see him upset Blanco on election night. However, he needs to maintain his status as the only valid anti-Blanco vote for independents and Democrats. He even needs to work to get a good 10-11 percent of the North Louisiana Republican vote to get in.
There won’t a runoff though, if another serious Republican candidate doesn’t jump in to take up 10-12 percent of Jindall’s vote share and hold him down to about 45%. I’m certain that the Republican Party, as centrally and well organized as it is statewide cannot keep at least one Republican from challenging Jindall. There will be at least one Police Juror, (in Louisiana each county is governed by a board called the Police Jury which serves the purpose of a County Executive, County Judge, County Commissioner, etc), but I’m not sure that would be enough to stop Jindall from getting 50% percent in the first election. The good news is that there are several term limited Republican State Senators mulling runs, and another few term limited State Representatives considering as well. The best case scenario is that two Republican state Senators, one State Rep, and three Police Jurors run against Jindall, and he’s held to a flat 40% vote total, and precious Republican resources go to the other Republican candidates.
If it were to go into a runoff between Blanco and Jindall, she will get her ass kicked, she will get a thumpin’, she will lose by twenty points and the Louisiana Democratic party will be shattered and left reeling. The Party will lose half a dozen State House seats in the runoff because of her horrible performance. It would probably lose a Senate seat on top of that.
Foster Campbell, I feel, could win with help from the national party. He’s a new face, and he’s not part of the establishment which Louisiana voters are so sick of. He’s got a populist demeanor, but it’s unlikely that he will outright scare small business away because he was a small business owner for decades. He’s a good campaigner, and he’s a good fundraiser. But, most of all, he exploits Jindall’s Achilles’ heel; North Louisiana.
In recent years, North Louisiana has been very strong for Republicans. Jindall, while beating Blanco by 25 points statewide in a recent independent poll, beat her by only one in North Louisiana. This area is Foster Campbell’s base, while Blanco hails from the lower half of Acadiana, where I grew up (the Lafayette-Lake Charles area, the lower half of Chris John’s old district in the bottom southwest quadrant of the state). The fact that she performs so well there despite here unpopularity and lack of regional connections, speaks volumes, to me at least, on what kind of sweep Campbell could make.
I think, that now that Chris John has demurred, Foster Campbell is our only chance of holding the Louisiana Gubernatorialship, and salvaging the Louisiana Democratic Party.
On the Legislature, Swing State Project poster louisianagirl has far more detail than I will provide. All I will give are my predictions.
I don’t know much about the house, but many close races will go into runoffs, and if Foster Campbell is in the runoff, whether he wins narrowly, or loses narrowly, I predict we lose four seats overall in the State House.
In the State Senate, I say that my Geometry Teacher’s husband Neil Riser beats the Democrat in Noble Ellington’s extremely Rural and Republican district, resulting in a Republican gain. But, several South Louisiana Republicans, originally elected as Democrats, are term limited out, and Democrats have a solid chance of picking up Craig Romero, who challenged Charlie Melancon last year and lost by about a 16 point margin, with a second Democrat in the race too. Thibideaux’s, I believe his name is, seat is also going to be a great target for Democrats. This leaves Democrats with an overall gain of one in the already overwhelmingly Democratic State Senate, while they do lose four seats in the State House, which, considering they won three seats in 2006 special elections, is not a serious loss.
Though I have to say the recent 527 created by Louisiana Republicans under the similar name as a Tom DeLay’s Texas 527, Louisianans for a Republican Majority I believe it’s called, has worried me. There are a lot of conservative districts that are open right now, and this 527 could raise a great deal of money and tip the balance. At any rate, the State House is where all the action, and the only Republican gains are going to be this year. All other statewide officers are running for reelection and are safe bets to win.
Let’s move on to Kentucky. I know nothing about the state of its State Legislature, that’s not an area I know much about. The Bluegrass Report though will have plenty of info on that. I’ll move solely onto the Gubernatorialship.
The Gubernatorialship
Republicans had their chance to destroy the Democratic Party in Kentucky even worse than it was obliterated in Georgia after 2002. They screwed up worse than any sane political pundit could have ever predicted.
After taking over because of Patton’s sex scandal, Gov. Ernie Fletcher has become embroiled in political scandal after political scandal; that has been the mark of his entire governorship. On top of that, he has not gotten any sweeping piece of legislation passed, he’s been complacent on education, he hasn’t balanced the budget, and he has not brought the state into a new era of economic growth. Fletcher hasn’t endeared himself to the Kentucky public in the least, in fact, he’s one of the most unpopular governors in the country, and has had disapprovals in the negatives by double digits for over a year now.
After it appeared she would not run for Governor, Anne Northup threw her hat in the ring, and it seems that she has the blessing of the kingmaker, (or in her case queenmaker), of the Kentucky Republican party, Mitch McConnell. But, she’s barely beating Fletcher outside the MOE in her own internal polls. Here’s a question for you Kentucky people, I’ve been pondering this, does Kentucky have a runoff in primaries? On another note, the conservative Republican party by and large seems to find the accusations purely political and unfounded. That gives Fletcher an opening, and gives Northup an even harder primary.
Anyway, 38 year old State Treasurer Jonathan Miller is easily the frontrunner for the Democratic primary, with the best connections, and strongest statewide name rec. What I like about him is that he could run for McConnell’s seat when it’s likely to be open, in 2014, and still just 45 years old. I think he’s a real rising star in the Kentucky Democratic Party, and has real Presidential potential in the future. He still has stiff challenge from Speaker of the State House, Jody Richards, but I think in the end he’ll overcome her.
Aside from how electable and strong a candidate he is, he’s also not a very conservative Democrat, his opinions are pretty moderate, and he appears to be a pretty good Democrat.
If Northup wins the Republican primary, which I believe is very likely, (unless there is no runoff in Kentucky and Billy Harper takes enough of the anti-Fletcher vote to allow Fletcher to edge Northup out), then this race is going to be close because she’ll rack up a landslide in KY-04, Geoff Davis’ district, and definitely hold Miller to a narrow margin of victory in strongly Democratic KY-03, her old district which is dominated by the liberal city of Louisville, (in fact, KY-03 is the only district in Kentucky that is not primarily suburban/exurban and rural, it’s the only urban district, and, despite Kerry’s weak showing, is reliably and strongly Democratic in statewide and local elections). I don’t think she win her old district, but a strong showing there would definitely require Miller to have a very strong showing in Chandler’s district, Hal Rogers district, (which is really Democratic on a local level, much like it’s neighbor, West Virginia. This district became even more Democratic when it was made to cover all of Eastern Kentucky after the 1992 reapportionment), Ed Barlow’s district, which some have called the most Republican of Kentucky districts, I disagree, and ancestrally Democratic KY-02, Ron Lewis’ district, (which is extremely socially conservative). Still, even with Northup and her infamous campaign savvy, as his opponent, I’d still predict him winning 52-47. With Fletcher, I’d say 59-40.
A quick note on the other statewide offices: Rep. Mike Weaver, who ran against Ron Lewis, is running for State Treasurer, I’d call him the underdog in the Democratic primary. Other statewide offices that are currently open are: Attorney General. I’d say we’ll definitely hold the State House in this great environment, and possibly, just maybe, pick up the State Senate, at the very least we’ll make gains.
I’m going to be brief on Mississippi as well, because, as with Kentucky, my knowledge of politics there is not as extensive and far reaching as I’d like, hell, I’m pissed off because I don’t know much about Louisiana politics after living here a year because the News-Star is the stupidest, shittiest, local newspaper I’ve ever encountered. It has no meat to it, and it’s absolutely useless for reading anything about politics. I don’t think I’ll even try on anything but the Governorship.
The Gubernatorialship
Things are remarkably low key in this race so far, but state Democrats salivating over the rumors of a Mabus/Moore candidacy. Mabus, a former Governor who lost his 1991 reelection campaign to a populist oriented Republican who ended up becoming very unpopular by the end of his two terms, is from North Mississippi and carries his own strengths as a candidate, including name rec. Moore was a popular four term Attorney General who retired in 2003. He’s from Biloxi, and carries great name rec., connections, and a base shared by Barbour.
This is a dream ticket, a dream ticket I’m skeptical will happen. I feel it’s likely that Mabus will jump in the ring, considering how publicly active he’s suddenly become in recent years. But, I don’t feel Moore will jump. I think Moore was through with politics in 2003, and if he did feel like getting in, I don’t think he’d want to take the backseat, even if it would probably only be for one term because of Mabus’ age and health, which could end up being campaign issues.
That’s all there really is to say about the race. This is just a skeleton analysis, because no major Democrat has jumped in to take on Haley Barbour yet. This is skimpy analysis. I normally have a lot more info, but this is the beginning outlook, nothing has happened yet, and there haven’t been any polls. I can offer my current prediction, which is that even our dream ticket, Barbour’s carried over the finish line 52-48 by his Katrina performance, and his campaigning saviness. It is important to keep Barbour sweating and on his heels this election though, that way Republican money there doesn’t go to the state legislature, and Barbour isn’t allowed to rack up a landslide and give Republicans a big gain in both houses. At current, I think the Democrats will keep the Mississippi State Legislature no matter what, though conservative Democrats will continue to give Republicans all but operational control of it.
An interesting side note, we have a great chance of retaking the Governorship when it’s open in 2011 due to term limits. Current Attorney General Jim Hood is popular, and he built a strong coalition to in 2003 to stave off a tough Republican attempt on the open seat, and he’s likely to win reelection in a landslide.
That’s the State of 2007, at the moment. Other states of interest include Virginia and New Jersey where the entire State Legislatures are up for reelection. I think Democrats have a real chance of taking back the Virginia State Senate, and increasing their margins in New Jersey. Those’ll be the sites of heated contests. If courts rule in Jennings favor, and determine that there needs to be a new election, that election will likely be held in November if Jennings can get through the legal system that fast. That would make Florida the site of a major election as well, as a Democratic victory here would vastly increase our momentum going into 2008.
"On the last note, I’m predicting that we’ll win the special election for the State Senate seat in Brooklyn. It’s tomorrow, and I would be shocked to see us lose it. A plurality of voters, by three percentage points, 38-35 I believe, are registered Democrats, and just to help you get a feel of where that puts it Presidentially, several New York Senate districts with a five or six point Republican edge voted for Kerry. I don’t see how we can lose with the New York Times endorsement, the more conservative and widely read in this district Newsday endorsement, and the massive campaign waged for a very strong candidate, County legislature Craig Johnson. Elliot Spitzer is very popular here, and his endorsement, and cutting an ad for Johnson definitely helps. Not to mention that recent corruption investigation that includes Joe Bruno, the Majority Leader of the State Senate, further highlights Spitzer’s calls for reform, and hurts the New York Republican Party. The Democrats have the momentum, not only because of the endorsements, but because of how Democratic last year was, and the leftover momentum that gave us. I think that nation, especially New York, is still in a very Democratic mood, and the New Democratic Congress is very popular so far, only helping the overall mood. These factors align for what I predict will be a 53-47 victory."
That was written on Monday, and posted as a comment on a Republican blogger blog. I add it to this diary just to show that my political predictions are about on base, except when I do get carried away, which happened quite often in 2006, and I was occasionally mislead by what I read on the internet, and bad polling. Of course I may have gotten plain lucky that time.
Anyway, please leave comments if you disagree. Please comment if you know more about the elections than I’ve said. If you agree, and want to write a concurrence, please do so. The following thread is an open thread on any 2007 race, including tomorrow’s crucial special election in New York, and races I left out.
P.S. Please vote in the poll. You can’t imagine how much I hate saying this and hate sounding like a broken record, but I like to know how many people read the diary, so if you read this diary, please take a second and vote in the poll.
Friday, February 2, 2007
A New Method For Winning?
This is a subject on which I have done a lot of research on, and I think that I have found a new method of winning in the South. Someone on Daily Kos pointed out that former Nebraska U.S. Senator Jim Exxon was an Economic Populist, but very socially conservative. I find that this is a very good point, because Nebraska is highly rural, and Socially Conservative, much like many Southern states, and I believe it is a good example for what I am trying to push for.
I won't beat around the bush, but, members of this organization should know I'm a more socially conservative Democrat, so I may see things differently on some issues than you do. I will, however, do my best not to offend anyone in the least.
But, from my own studies of the South, and many rural areas, many people who haven't voted for Democrats in years, still tend to be populists, it has surprised me over and over and over and over again. Why don't they vote for Democrats. Well the most common answer was that they weren't perceived as "Christian" in their values or position as the other guy. After that came, "I didn't feel like I could connect with him, like he was my friend", then, "Since both candidates didn't have an ounce of populism in them, I voted for the more Socially conservative candidate." All of those statements are true, gotten from overwhelmingly white, and 72% pro-Bush in 2004, East Carroll Parish, where I have several Great-Grandparents, and a place that I visit often, and occasionally deliver a sermon in my great-grandfather's church.
Quite the opposite of what many think, these Religious Conservatives are actually
Populist, why. Well as someone who has always liked talking and having the spotlight, I also write a bunch of Sermons, many of which I never get a chance to tell anybody, some which I get to do at a small church, a lot of the time my great grandfathers. I can tell you right know, the Bible contains a great deal of economically populist messages, and rural social conservatives do believe these ideals, a lot of them do, far more than most people probably think. Some of the only problems are how Republicans have demonized taxation and Government. That's why we need what I like to call "Your Friendly Neighborhood Democrat". The charismatic Democrat who can create what many bloggers have so aptly called 'a narrative' about middle class and lower class families struggling to make it, to bring emotion and personal appeals into. I do this regularly in my sometimes rather blatantly political sermons.
Conservatives have gotten many of them thinking Democrats what to take your tax money and give it to poor worthless blacks and minorities, when really, Southern states are the poorest, and rural whites make up a majority of their percentage of the population on welfare. A Democrat needs to bring that back into perspective, to make it to where when someone mentions the Democratic party, that person's first though is, 'my party, the common man's party', and not, 'the pro-gay, pro-abortion, Minority party'. That first thought, that's what most people used to think about the Democratic party into the South before the Republican party, (with much effort), changed the narrative to the latter.
In my opinion the South is not lost at all, but Democrats must adjust. I still maintain that the Democratic Party at large needs to remain fairly socially liberal, (and must start acting more Economically Liberal), but in the South the party needs to become more socially conservative, (in many instances far more than I am). Rural areas that were once the bastion of the Democratic party have now become the opposite for the Republican party, I am personally sure that the key to success is to take back those areas, or come close. In Georgia, many Rural counties where a majority of registered voters were Democrats, Bush got close to 60%, indicating major crossover support due to social issues, and social issues alone.
To give you some more background on this, East Carroll parish is where Oak Grove and multiple other small towns lie. I travel the Parish often, and have found Economic populism, or semi-economic populism still common. People just don't believe Democrats are the Party to do it, but for them neither are the Republicans.
This brings me up to my second subject; the economic conservatism of elected Southern Democrats. Many Southern Democrats like: Gene Taylor, Lincoln Davis, John Tanner, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Bud Cramer, Mike McIntyre, and Allen Boyd, (who actually signed the Republican proposal to privatize Social Security), are all extremely conservative on Economic Issues. They all also represent districts that, on a presidential level, mostly support Republicans. When a fundamentalist Christian voter who is open to economic is voting in a tough election between a very conservative Democrat and Republican, he'll most likely choose the Republican because he is most likely the most conservative of the two candidates when it comes to Social issues. Why does he vote this way, why because there's not a charisma or Economic populism in the Democrats' body.
Charisma is key! New Democrats will have to use personal appeals, like Republicans, to move voters with a touching narrative. As a writer, I find this personally very easy, and during some sermons on the problems and tough lives of many poor working Americans, my eyes have started watering, because I know what it's like to grow up poor. New Democrats will have to do the same. Voters have to be moved, not won over because you support massive tax cuts for the rich, or oppose Gay Marriage.
I'd like to know where many of you stand on this issue, maybe you have a personal opinion, or anecdote to share that relates to it. Let's get into it, as this is the first major post of the Southern Democrats Club.
To tie up a few things, when I said, 'the pro-gay, pro-abortion, Minority party', I was not being racist; I was just purveying the reader a very, very, scarily accurate portrayal of a rural conservative white's thoughts on the Democratic party. Many poor rural people indeed don't even like the party they always vote for. They still distrust it as the party of the rich, and big business, many still have a deep affinity for the Democratic party too, they just don't feel like they can vote for it anymore. But, the right type of Democrat can win these voters once again. Second, I will write you all an example of a personal narrative in my next post, and I am very sorry that it has taken me so long to write my first post.
So, what are your thoughts?
I won't beat around the bush, but, members of this organization should know I'm a more socially conservative Democrat, so I may see things differently on some issues than you do. I will, however, do my best not to offend anyone in the least.
But, from my own studies of the South, and many rural areas, many people who haven't voted for Democrats in years, still tend to be populists, it has surprised me over and over and over and over again. Why don't they vote for Democrats. Well the most common answer was that they weren't perceived as "Christian" in their values or position as the other guy. After that came, "I didn't feel like I could connect with him, like he was my friend", then, "Since both candidates didn't have an ounce of populism in them, I voted for the more Socially conservative candidate." All of those statements are true, gotten from overwhelmingly white, and 72% pro-Bush in 2004, East Carroll Parish, where I have several Great-Grandparents, and a place that I visit often, and occasionally deliver a sermon in my great-grandfather's church.
Quite the opposite of what many think, these Religious Conservatives are actually
Populist, why. Well as someone who has always liked talking and having the spotlight, I also write a bunch of Sermons, many of which I never get a chance to tell anybody, some which I get to do at a small church, a lot of the time my great grandfathers. I can tell you right know, the Bible contains a great deal of economically populist messages, and rural social conservatives do believe these ideals, a lot of them do, far more than most people probably think. Some of the only problems are how Republicans have demonized taxation and Government. That's why we need what I like to call "Your Friendly Neighborhood Democrat". The charismatic Democrat who can create what many bloggers have so aptly called 'a narrative' about middle class and lower class families struggling to make it, to bring emotion and personal appeals into. I do this regularly in my sometimes rather blatantly political sermons.
Conservatives have gotten many of them thinking Democrats what to take your tax money and give it to poor worthless blacks and minorities, when really, Southern states are the poorest, and rural whites make up a majority of their percentage of the population on welfare. A Democrat needs to bring that back into perspective, to make it to where when someone mentions the Democratic party, that person's first though is, 'my party, the common man's party', and not, 'the pro-gay, pro-abortion, Minority party'. That first thought, that's what most people used to think about the Democratic party into the South before the Republican party, (with much effort), changed the narrative to the latter.
In my opinion the South is not lost at all, but Democrats must adjust. I still maintain that the Democratic Party at large needs to remain fairly socially liberal, (and must start acting more Economically Liberal), but in the South the party needs to become more socially conservative, (in many instances far more than I am). Rural areas that were once the bastion of the Democratic party have now become the opposite for the Republican party, I am personally sure that the key to success is to take back those areas, or come close. In Georgia, many Rural counties where a majority of registered voters were Democrats, Bush got close to 60%, indicating major crossover support due to social issues, and social issues alone.
To give you some more background on this, East Carroll parish is where Oak Grove and multiple other small towns lie. I travel the Parish often, and have found Economic populism, or semi-economic populism still common. People just don't believe Democrats are the Party to do it, but for them neither are the Republicans.
This brings me up to my second subject; the economic conservatism of elected Southern Democrats. Many Southern Democrats like: Gene Taylor, Lincoln Davis, John Tanner, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Bud Cramer, Mike McIntyre, and Allen Boyd, (who actually signed the Republican proposal to privatize Social Security), are all extremely conservative on Economic Issues. They all also represent districts that, on a presidential level, mostly support Republicans. When a fundamentalist Christian voter who is open to economic is voting in a tough election between a very conservative Democrat and Republican, he'll most likely choose the Republican because he is most likely the most conservative of the two candidates when it comes to Social issues. Why does he vote this way, why because there's not a charisma or Economic populism in the Democrats' body.
Charisma is key! New Democrats will have to use personal appeals, like Republicans, to move voters with a touching narrative. As a writer, I find this personally very easy, and during some sermons on the problems and tough lives of many poor working Americans, my eyes have started watering, because I know what it's like to grow up poor. New Democrats will have to do the same. Voters have to be moved, not won over because you support massive tax cuts for the rich, or oppose Gay Marriage.
I'd like to know where many of you stand on this issue, maybe you have a personal opinion, or anecdote to share that relates to it. Let's get into it, as this is the first major post of the Southern Democrats Club.
To tie up a few things, when I said, 'the pro-gay, pro-abortion, Minority party', I was not being racist; I was just purveying the reader a very, very, scarily accurate portrayal of a rural conservative white's thoughts on the Democratic party. Many poor rural people indeed don't even like the party they always vote for. They still distrust it as the party of the rich, and big business, many still have a deep affinity for the Democratic party too, they just don't feel like they can vote for it anymore. But, the right type of Democrat can win these voters once again. Second, I will write you all an example of a personal narrative in my next post, and I am very sorry that it has taken me so long to write my first post.
So, what are your thoughts?
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Welcome bloggers.
This is the Southern Democrats Alliance Blog to discuss political issues in the south. This blog is open to all Southern Democrats to blog on, all you have to do is join the SDU officially on the DFA, click here:
What I want is to talk about, and inform people of the state of local and state races on this blog from people on the front line. As Democrats continue to struggle to regain there footing in the South. This organization is dedicated to strengthening the Democratic Party in the South, and fundraise and organize the Democratic party in the South, to serve and assist the state parties, and promote a moderately toned, but Populist party for the South.
 |
| Join Southern Democrats Club! |
What I want is to talk about, and inform people of the state of local and state races on this blog from people on the front line. As Democrats continue to struggle to regain there footing in the South. This organization is dedicated to strengthening the Democratic Party in the South, and fundraise and organize the Democratic party in the South, to serve and assist the state parties, and promote a moderately toned, but Populist party for the South.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)