Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > June > 06 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USDemocrats and the South: What’s the Plan?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
One of Monday’s bloggers, Southern Democrat, valiantly attempted to fashion a platform that would appeal to the country. For the life of me, I haven’t heard anything from any national Democrat that leads me to believe they’ve cracked the code on the South. Poor U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman tried — and for his efforts, he gets primary opposition from the left. For now, the national party seems to be attempting to build a majority on the terrorist threat that global warming represents and on opposition to tax cuts and Iraq. Won’t sell down here, folks.
Democrats could have a chance if they had a voice that inspired confidence on national security, if they presented a credible alteranative to big-spending Republicans, and if they could be trusted to do anything domestically other than grow government. Get there and the Dems could win in the South.
This is a two-parter. Choose either. Tell me three things Democrats could do — that the party’s liberal wing would allow — that would appeal in the South, and Georgia in particular. Or identify some Democrat — other than those now running statewide — who could win a statewide race for a major office. I’m not exactly stumped. But the picking’s are slim.
Comments
By Angry Liberal Guy
June 6, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
Judging by their recent spineless actions I don’t think there is much that the Democrats won’t allow. That said, I think that the three thibgs the Dems can do to garner support in the south would be 1)Support the anti-gay ammendment 2)Denounce flag burning and 3)Do an about-face and say that the Iraq war is going very well.
If Dems have to lower themselves to appeal to the lowest common denominator to win then so be it. They can always turn around and do what they really want once they are in office. It worked for Dubya AND Sonny.
By Van
June 6, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
“…three things Democrats could do — that the party’s liberal wing would allow — that would appeal in the South,…”
This is a trick question, the phrase “that the party’s liberal wing would allow” is the kicker, there is nothing they would allow.
They would not allow a repeal of the 17th amendment, to give states back some of their say in DC.
They would not allow the repeal the 16th Amendment, so we can have a non-progressive tax system.
Finally, they would not sing the praises of the Bill of Rights, just those that allow hidden meanings.
As to who in Georgia could win state wide elections, good question, no one has really stepped up and tried. - either party!
By Angry Liberal Guy
June 6, 2006 08:45 AM | Link to this
Oh and by the way Jim, why would you choose an oxymoron for a slogan? Common Sense Conservatism? Gimme a break.
By The Stopper
June 6, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Common Sense Conservatism? Gimme a break.
It’s a nice dream anyway. I’ve yet to see any manifestations of such a thing in any southern state, although like the ivory-billed woodpecker, I’d like to think such a thing does still exist.
Anyway, since Jim asked nicely, here are my suggestions:
1) Advocate a serious increase in the minimum wage. Tie this in to the red-hot issue of illegal immigration and remind everyone that the reason there are “jobs Americans won’t do” is because there are jobs Georgia employers aren’t willing to pay a decent wage to have done. Make the usual jabbering noise about “see-curin’ them borders” while doing this. Folks just eat this stuff up ‘round these parts.
2) Touch the third rail and call the pro-lifers’ bluff. Make criminalization of abortion the issue; take a pledge to never advocate legislation that would imprison a doctor or adult patient who’s performing or having a first-trimester abortion, period. Yeah, it’s a cheap shot, since no such legislation has been proposed in GA that I know of, but it’d force some of the GOP into a very uncomfortable position.
3) Propose some kind of baby-step universal healthcare coverage that would go beyond the current Peachcare program and cover working Georgians by pooling their contributions into something that would (gulp) compete with the various crooks and liars writing policies today.
These are all good, solid Progressive issues that the Democrats could use to their advantage.
By jbmlaw
June 6, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this
Since Jim gave us a choice of the two, and since there is nothing the national demos would allow that will sell in the South, I’ll try to name a demo who could win a state-wide.
A non-controversial figure - maybe an athlete - would have the best shot. Either a Zell-type democrat, or one who concealed his true thoughts while running (a la Jimmy) would have a chance. Maybe Herschel Walker?
By Real Dem
June 6, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
Interesting that Jim would ask us to “identify some Democrat — OTHER THAN those now running statewide — who could win a statewide race for a major office.” It’s not exactly a trick question, but it’s a setup. If you’re discussing what the Democratic Party has to offer, why not discuss what the party is currently offering?
Could it be that doing so would threaten Jim’s constant premise that the Democrats have nothing? This is a great example of the ridiculous anti-Democrat bias that permeates the media. Why on earth would someone NOT running in an election year be a better example than one who IS?
By stating his request as he did, Jim makes it clear he does NOT want us to identify viable, sensible alternatives to the current good-ol-boy network of one-hand-washes-the-other (as long as tax cuts and campaign contributions keep coming) that currently rules Georgia… a state where only six in ten students actually finish high school, corruption is rampant, and transportation and pollution issues are completely ignored.
Way to inspire a meaningful discussion, Jim!
By South GA Dem
June 6, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this
I think Jim Marshall is about the only “D” who can probably win state wide, especially if Cox or Taylor do not make it. I predict he’ll run against Saxby Chamblis in two years. Who else could? Or perhaps he will wait for the governor’s race in 2010.
Issues? I’ve long since given up on the national Dems. I think Zell got it right. Most of my former Democrat friends are now voting Republican and I confess I have done that too.
There is not much in common between us south GA Democrats and those in Atlanta, who might as well live in New York.
By T.I.E.
June 6, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Wooten — you have no business talking about “what’s the plan” for Dems… you couldn’t possibly care less other than espouse your divisive “keep them what’s in power in power” diatribes. The number one thing any non-incumbent Dem or Repub has going for them is that they aren’t in office right now — when our government (supposedly conservative) has abandoned all reason and restraint and is in for a power grab of epic proportions. Wake up! This is supposed to be a government of the People, vote the dividers out (whichever party they choose to run with)!!
By Jeff
June 6, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
as I noted in a discussion with the lady I’m talking to right now yesterday when trying to figure out where she stands politically:
Kennedy or Miller? (Finding a well known moderate Democrat is dang near impossible!!!!)
Things the Democrats could do and win MY vote:
Promote TRUE tolerance and diversity. Not “tolerance” of anything other than Christianity, but tolerance of everything INCLUDING Christianity. Not diversity that promotes everything OTHER than the conservative straight white male, but diversity that INCLUDES the conservative straight white male. As an extremely liberal friend of mine in DC once said: “It won’t happen. It would destroy us.”
Kick Ted Kennedy out of the party. While you’re at it, get rid of the influences of ANY who panders to any community with welfare programs and lowered standards. (Also known as reverse racism). This includes Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Lewis, Cynthia McKinney, and a slew of others.
Has been mentioned, but bears repeating: Get serious on national security. I don’t like some of what the Republicans are doing, but at least they’re doing SOMETHING to protect the CONUS.
By Jeff
June 6, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this
Good question, Jim. Here are my three ideas:
(1) Get comfortable, or at least tolerate, people of faith as candidates and party leaders. As long as “evangelical” is a figurative four-letter word for Democrats, they will have a hard time.
(2) Embrace federalism— that’s right, “states’ rights”—on controversial social issues. We have 50 state governments so that ideas can be tested and allowed to flourish or decay without affecting the whole of the country. This would permit MS/AL/GA Democrats to work on other important issues without the heavy collar of MA/CA/NY social policies threatening them, and vice versa.
(3) Have some pride in your party. Stop cowering away from your beliefs, or from words like “liberal”— the lack of confidence is as big a turn-off as the substantive issues. If you’re a liberal, darn it, God bless you and be one. If you’re not, that’s fine too— just stop being afraid of your own shadow.
By George Clements
June 6, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
This comment is really intended for the Democrats. You have fallen into a trap. Mr. Wooten has no interest whatsoever in helping the Democrats out of their current bind. His right-wing friends will not allow him to ever support any bonafide proposal that doesn’t have a GOP label. Mr. Wooten appears to be unable or unwilling to take any moderate stance on any issue of substance. His new entry into cyberspace has about the same legitimacy as Boortz or Hannity or any of the radio folks who make a very comfortable living shouting from the right side of the political stage.
I commented twice on yesterday’s silly discussion about judges because I want to make sure that Mr. Wooten doesn’t go unchallenged with his unbalanced perspective. Today’s topic merits no rebuttal.
By getalife
June 6, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this
Jim, you should be concerned for your party.
By T.I.E.
June 6, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
excellent posts Jeff and Jeff.
By bluedog
June 6, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
The Dems need to draw the line between good public policy and religion. White people in the South don’t seem to know the difference, or don’t care. Maybe after “W”, they’ll see the light !!
By Tyler
June 6, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
I do hope the Dems do make a comeback in the South but it will be very tough.The religious Nazis wants more control of our lives…As a gay man I am becoming a second class citizen under there power.I say more freedoms and less government but the Dems will not provide that either. So is there any hope for this country?
By Robert
June 6, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
I think that there is a difference between “getting elected” and “advocating the right thing.” It is “right” to ban discrimination and to not have second class citizens. However, to get elected, it seems that Southern politicans must make gay people just that - second class citizens.
Many people have already made great suggestions to get elected. The problem for Democrates is that we are not two-faced like the Republicans. Republicans seem to have no problem saying that they want less government and less taxes only to turn around once they get elected and do just the opposite.
By Jim Wooten
June 6, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this
To Real Dem’s point: The only reason for directing the discussion to Democrats other than those running for a major office is that all current office-holders have obviously established that they’re capable of winning statewide. The intent here was to get some sense of others who show that potential. And, in that regard, I agree with South GA Dem that U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall of Macon has that potential. He, like U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop, seems to have the right ear for Southern politics. By that, I mean he’s been smart politically with his Congressional votes.
By Midori
June 6, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
Hi, Jim — I’m way to the left of you and don’t agree with your politics.
I just wanted to stop by and say “Hello”.
By chris broe
June 6, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
The Democrats can unveil their own Eggs & Issues manifesto - or was that a formal benediction by a commercial breakfast club honoring the unpetered principles from which all redstate legislators draw their consensus - at a Crepes & Croissants breakfast. That should induce the Right’s Evangelical Fasters to get on the phones and sell pennance for votes, which has been the crescendo of grace that nearly every elected protestant kennel has ever achieved in our collective monkey history (lived out in dog years, of course). Burn your Dixie Chicks and John lennon records here: this reveals how we’ve elevated our elected leaders to Gods.
How could the Georgia Chamber of Commerce speak for the Republican Majority in the Georgia Congress and nobody notice the conflict of interest? This clerical/commercial underwriting of legislation is a clear violation of the implied socio-political contract under which a voter choses: that a legislature needs to be independent of the theo-commercial institutions. There should be no co-authors of legislation nor any ghost underwriters.
By Gary
June 6, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
Wow, i am glad to see that since i vote for the GOP that i am a racist, nazi, and a whiteboy that doesnt care. and i was wondering why Democrats kept losing elections. With supporters like you, who needs enemies. maybe if the Democrats would lose the liberal wing of their party and come up with a legit plan, then maybe people like myself would vote for them. Instead all they give us is name calling and hate speech. No the GOP probably doesnt have the greatest plan for the country, but at least they are offering one.
By sct
June 6, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
This is how a Democrat can be elected in Georgia….
Advocate the end to the teaching of evolution in schools.
Declare the Bible gives “special rights” to evangelicals.
Allow employers to hire “illegal aliens”. (Never call these employers “illegal employers” or “criminal employers”.)
Call for building a huge fence along the Tenn. and South Carolina border to keep the yankees out. Build a fence along the Florida and Alabama border to keep the Mexicans out.
Have Eric Johnson switch parties and run for governor as a Democrat.
Squeeze every last dime out of immoral Metro Atlanta and disperse the money to rural Georgia.
Kick Decatur out of the state.
End corporate taxes.
Put the 10 commandments on every street corner.
Blame everything that is wrong in the state on the AJC.
Give public money to CNN as an incentive to move to New York.
Give the road builders 500 billion dollars to make traffic worse.
By Nicholas
June 6, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
I too wonder why you spend so much time worrying about what the Democratic Party needs to do. We are the party of balanced budget and sound foreign policy. The spineless Congressman and Senators have allowed the Republicans to portray them as big spending liberals who can’t protect the country. So the really is only one thing the party can do and that is stand up for what we believe and a REAL Democrat (not Zell Miller) still remember what the party principles are. As for state wide Democrats Jim Marshall would make an excellent candidate for any available office, as would Terry Coleman, and would Dubose Porter if they so choose to serve in that capacity.
By Gary
June 6, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
I think the answer to your questions are that the national Democrats are basically out of step with the way most of us think in the South, which is exactly why the Republicans have made so many gains. Democrats ruled the South for decades when our fathers would have rather voted for a “yellow dog” than a Republican. Despite the mistakes that may have been made in the war on terror, Republicans have been much more in tune to southern middle class family values than Democrats.
By time for the truth
June 6, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
If you look at the typically shrill responses from liberals here it sums the donkey party’s problems. Their appeal and aspirations are effectively based entirely on yankee and left/lefty coast liberalism and the poisoned chalice that this truly minority perspective represents to most voters. Blacks, other minorities, homosexuals and the happily much reduced -increasingly less regimented - union block votes generally support the donkey party, plus some illegal voters who they encourage (see Bob Dornan’s illegal ouster). Whilst numerically its a fairly big tent - its a very narrow minded tent and not one that resonates well in the south. Blacks essentially vote for those who promise them more pork (and so called “civil rights” which is really legalised racism) or at least wont take pork away and the other donkey voters do it instinctively because the GOP is … multi-choice lies here: “racist/bigoted/war mongering, anti-environment, favours the rich etc”. Thus the south has no real local/regional issues that can generate anything other than the usual level of donkey votes. Its fair to say that the electoral elephant in the south will continue to largely dominate for the foreseeable future, because the GOP speaks for/to the majority of folks. The religious dimension is very important here in Dixie, which as a hard line secularist I am not comfortable with, but that’s democracy. Long may the donkey party’s decline continue.
By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent
June 6, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Let’s see, what can the Dems do to sway some voters in the South? Well, 1) they can promise tax breaks to anyone who owns a pickup truck; 2) they can pretend evolution didn’t happen and that science and medicine are wacky extensions of voodoo 3) start preaching that morality should be legislated per Baptist ideals, ie. gays are evil and should be outlawed and everything our leaders do is preordained by the Almighty. Sorry, the problem is with southern thinkers, not the Dems.
By John
June 6, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
I think The Stopper and Jeff had particularly good posts. Especially Jeff’s as it pertained to Federalism and The Stopper’s as it related to abortion. It seems to me the Democrats need to work hard to shed the perception that they view strong religous faith as a disqualification for an elected official.
Finally, it troubles me that many of the participants in this blog are taking some sort of latent frustrations out on Wooten instead of engaging in the debate and discourse. This is why your party keeps losing; the Republicans are the only ones giving ideas. Even though you are the minority, your participation focuses the debate and sharpens the view of the issues.
So … quit name calling and offer some tangible ideas for change—we’ll listen, I promise.
By bill fell
June 6, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
dear voice of dissent. “southern thinker”is an oxymoron. The reason for so many southern folks being republican is the civil rights act which caused them to jump to the republican party from the democratic party. They hate black americans.
By time for the truth
June 6, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
if you are actually one of the majority voices of dissent - how come the donkey party is essentially on the run electorally in the south and especially in GA?!!!
I note you typically twist the religious aspects of life in Dixie. I suppose the dems, having made homosexuality legal in GA will next time they get power make it compulsory!! (just so you know - that’s sardonic irony)
By time for the truth
June 6, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
bill fell
so now the racebaiting starts - funny how this always happens on ajc blogs!!
Bush appointed more blacks to more important posts than klinton ever did!!
By sct
June 6, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this
“Time for the truth”, why should Democrats give up their values?
Even if it means always being in the minority I will never give up my values or opinion, or the right to express them.
By Brill
June 6, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Name three things that Democrats could do that would appeal to the South. Name a democratic(s), not currently running,that could win political office.
A: Southerners are God-fearing,ignorant, racist, nazi rednecks who hate gays and blacks…and drive pickups.
Dems, do you see the problem ? In a private school that answer would garner an “F”. So much for fruitful discourse and debate.
By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent
June 6, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
TFT,
70% against the current administrastion sounds like a majority to me. You only need 51% for a majority, but you’re probably one of those brilliant minds who think that it’s a failure of the education system if 49% of students fall below average. The dissent part is because the country is currently being governed by the opposing 30% who still support the administration(maybe “governed” is too strong a word; how about “misguided”?). As to your question, the answer is that there are too many poorly educated, evangelical voters in the south who don’t realize the Republican party does nothing but harm their well-being. I suspect you’re one of those people.
By The Stopper
June 6, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
I think The Stopper and Jeff had particularly good posts
Hey, I don’t have to sit here and take this… oh. um, thanks, John. I want to discuss something you brought up:
It seems to me the Democrats need to work hard to shed the perception that they view strong religous faith as a disqualification for an elected official.
When I hear stuff like that, I really wonder where this “perception” comes from. It certainly isn’t the result of anything, AFAIK, that any prominent GA Democrat has done. Rather, it seems merely the result of what Democrats are accused by others of doing.
To argue this point, to claim “we’re religious too!” in a public and noisy fashion is to accept the framing by the opponent, and I think that’s a very poor strategy.
Does that mean Democrats shouldn’t be seen inside churchs, along with kissing babies, eating boiled P-nuts and doing all the other stuff people do on the campaign trail? Of course not. But to be any more blatant than that will be seen as phony, and it’s counterproductive.
By early Sunday AM radio
June 6, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
IKE NEWKIRK should RUNNNNNNNNN!!!!!
By Terry
June 6, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
I agree with South GA Dem. As a former elected D, (who was called a libertarian by many), the “new” national democratic party has no room for us.
The Southern D’s were known for being social liberal’s and fiscal conservatives. We used to laugh at the statement that “Southern democrats were northern republican’s with a conscience.” You could be a fiscally conservative, bible-toatin’, Habit for Humanity building, education supporting person and still be a democrat.
Unfortnuately it is exceedingly difficult to be both a conservative and a democrat today. You have to be “progressive” if you want to get the “democratic mainstream” primary vote.
I watch many present day southern democratic elected officials, both black and white, wrestle with this daily throughout the South. I believe this is one of the reasons that many blacks are being drawn to the republican party, because their conservative beliefs on personal responsibility are more welcome there.
As for three things southern conservative D’s would have to do to appeal to northern liberals, here are my thoughts.
Write a Broadway musical called “Dixie” starring Joe Pesci as General Lee, Rosie O’Donnell as Flannery O’Connor and Jesse Jackson as…well, Jesse Jackson.
Change all Waffle Houses to White Castles.
Refuse to sell sweet tea any time during the year and only unsweet in the summer. Only yellow corn can be sold in stores and okra is banned outright.
And this one is a bonus. Remove Confederate Memorial Day, Robert E. Lee’s Birthday and Jefferson Davis’s birthday from the official list of state holidays.
In other words, Jim, it ain’t gonna happen.
Vote and Vote Often!
By Van
June 6, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
bill fell,
Please read your history, a greater percent of the Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act then the democrats, without the Republicans, there would not have been a Civil Rights Act. And that was the result Johnson wanted.
By KC
June 6, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Well I’ll try to step over the steaming cow pies of “bad donkey party” this and “evil elephant party” that. First my bio: Southern White Male (Born and raised in GA, no translplant) college educated, gainfully employed. And I’m a Democrat. What can My party do to win a statewide election in GA or another Southern state? Stop trying to be GOP-light and stick to their guns. Most Democrats are moderate-to-liberal in their thinking. Fine. That’s who we are. So here’s what to do: 1)Trumpet the traditionally Democratic foreign policies of FDR, Truman, Kennedy…that we are strongest only when we engage in bringing other nations into our home, rather than offending and ignoring. The biggest guns do not always grant the owner unquestioning rights. 2)Stand up for Civil Liberties. Speak out that ALL individuals should have equal protection under the law. Black, white, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Met’s fans. That won’t win today, but it might just win tomorrow when the younger generations gain the right to vote and, hopefully, aren’t burdened by the hysterical bigotry exhibited by many of the “if it ain’t straight, white and Christian it’s wrong” mentality of a huge number of Southern voters. And please don’t insult my intelligence by saying that isn’t true of many. 3)Repeal the personal income tax and move our economy to a “Flat” or “Consumption” based taxation system for individual taxpayers. This is the most liberal idea of all: that each single American, regardless of race or income level, bears the same tax burden based solely on their consumption of goods and services. Corporations would still be taxed under an overriding code…there is still just no way to safely apply a “Flat” tax to large business consumption…but it would be a start. And a truly Liberal idea.
Those are my ideas. Any Democrats takers?
Have a great day everybody!
By If I Were Elected
June 6, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
The democrats need to also take up the Sanctity of Marriage issue and do the following:
Introduce a Constitutional Amendment to Ban Divorce
There is no greater threat to marriage than divorce. Plus, divorce is never a good thing for children. Just like president Bush says, we need children raised by their mother and father together. Ban Divorce!
Moreover, in Luke 16:18 Jesus said “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her, who is divorced from her husband, commits adultery.” And all Christians and Republicans would certainly agree that adultery is a sin and certainly confirms a one-way ticket to hell.
Introduce this legislation immediately! (It may be wasteful, but so is the current Defense of Marriage Amendment.) I would love the Democrats to stand up and call the Christian/Republican right’s bluff for once and watch them squirm!!!
By time for the truth
June 6, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
no one’s asking you to give up your values, that’s an obtsue, dishonest point mate. My values are not completely GOP by any means but I compromise when I vote - the lesser of the two evils :)
Dissent…
current opinion polls do NOT equate with actual electoral results . the GOP now run GA, after 8 painful years of klinton + 150 or so years of dem govs and mostly dem run state gov… that is THE POINT HERE!!!
as for your ignorant bigotry @ southern christians and your personal insults to me …I dont dont agree with church going types on many points but they have the same right to vote and express their opinion as you or I.
you seem to boil it all down to simple selective numbers that suit your argument. Funny how we heard LITTLE from the far left when Bush was at record numbers a few years ago … your point about education is obtuse and dishonest!!
you also completely ignored the point that the donkey party does not “speak” to folks in the south/GA these days.
By sct
June 6, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
There is not much I could say to make a Republican vote for a Democrat. So whats the point? I would have to give up alot of what I believe in order to make most Republicans vote for a Democrat.
Why is everyone afraid of differing opinions? Most of you seem to want one party rule. How do the opinions expressed here threaten you?
To turn the question around a bit, what beliefs, values and opinions would a Republican be willing to give up?
By buck
June 6, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this
And don’t forget about NASCAR!
By T.J.
June 6, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
I’ve been reading these kinds of comments for years, but the arrogance of some liberals remains truly breathtaking.
According to these people, any Georgian who disagreees with them and their policies is an easily-led, ignorant, racist, backward-thinking, science-hating, bible-thumping Southerner.
Oh, well, I can we conservatives should consider ourselves lucky that our liberal friends are so tolerant of others. If they weren’t, they might get REALLY nasty with their comments.
By getalife
June 6, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Watch this video and you may think twice about being a conservative
Or just listen to Rush.
By Brill
June 6, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
Great posts, Terry and KC. Humorous and insightful with IDEAS. I was a hardcore dem, now a libertarian. Conservative fiscally, socially liberal. I would like to see a consumption or flat tax, an end to eminent domain abuse, secure our borders, (every other country does)and stop legislating morality when it does not affect anothers life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. ( I don’t like it, so nobody should be able to do it.) That is some issues I could get behind and vote dem again.
By Earl
June 6, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this
I find it hilarious to hear Republicans demanding that the Democrats deliver some “ideas.” What ideas did the Republicans offer to grab control of the entire government: Let’s see, there’s (a)FEAR, and um… (b)more FEAR, and then the ol’ Georgia favorite (c)Loathe thy neighbor. And the big donors line up when they promise (d) tax cuts and (e) corporate tax “relief” despite unfunded bugetary needs and spiraling deficits. Their big idea to resolve both foreign and domestic problems is (f) big, unaudited no-bid contracts to their buddies, although they’ve solved nothing with those billions. While unemployment is finally down from what it was, so are real earnings for most American families. Where are the “ideas” from the people in power to fix that? They’re so smart, they understand that global warming is “junk science” but our future depends on teaching creationism in science class. Uh-huh.
The Republicans are SO COMPLETELY out of ideas, they’ve resurrected a homophobic initiative (fear and loathe thy neighbor) to amend the Constitution to withhold, restrict, and deny rights to a specific group of people!
Here’s an “idea” for the Democrats: Demand the incumbents defend their achievements without using the words “liberal, lefty, pinko, baby-killer, homo, godless, or 9-11!”
By Brill
June 6, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this
And how could I forget the main two…the govt.is too BIG and spends too much money. Return powers to the states like a poster stated earlier. What floats in Cali, might not work for GA or even Mass.
By Cos
June 6, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
I think Shirley Franklin would be a formidable statewide candidate. Although I believe she is all smoke and mirrors, the majority of folks seem to love her. Obviously she would have the Dems as her base and then the suburban soccer moms could put her over he top. My guess is she would only run statewide if they couldn’t convince Lewis to retire so she would have a safe Congressional seat.
By time for the truth
June 6, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
I am an ENGLISH Republican - so the culture here for me is very different, my wife is a GA born secular Reagan Republican.
There’s NOTHING I can say that would make a dem vote GOP - except remember the dems on the senate judiciary committee - now they are evil incarnate :)
I am mildly pro-choice and not religious - so those are some “GOP’ values I’d give up - but not all the traditional morality that the utterly moral relativist dems have ditched over the years!!
By Michael
June 6, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
What do you expect them to do in a region where people think two boys kissing 1800 miles away is going to ruin their life? Republicans have latched on to the dumbest sector of the South and, by looking at test scores all over, that’s who the majority is here. How else do you explain believing something which there is little proof of only because mommy and daddy sent you to indoc…I mean church from age 0?
By sct
June 6, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Brill, could a pro-choice, non religious Democrat be elected in the south?
Would you be willing to become a Christian conservative in order to be elected?
By bluedog
June 6, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Excellent blog !!
There is an excellent primary going on in Montana. John Tester is a good candidate. I would vote for either him or Max Baucus for President.
By Brill
June 6, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
sct,
Good question. It would be awfully difficult. Wouldn’t pretending to be something you are not just to win office be selling yourself out ? Or am I just the most naive 43 year old on the planet ?! Time to watch “Mr. Smith goes to Washington again !” I do not want to veer this blog down a this religion vs that path or the abortion issue because it would be time to pull the plug and let this thread flame out. I consider myself a conservative but whether someone goes to church or not is not my business. I want substance and ideas.
By John
June 6, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this
To argue this point, to claim “we’re religious too!” in a public and noisy fashion is to accept the framing by the opponent, and I think that’s a very poor strategy.
I agree. But on moral and social issues like gay marriage, you ought to first agree or disagree personally and then clarify that personal agreement/disagreement is different from endorsing a governmental solution to the problem. I think you can embrace faith and religous roots as a party without saying “Hey, look at us, we go to church too.” I think the effective strategy would be to clarify that your faith defines who you are, but not necessarily how you govern.
By an independent
June 6, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
While “Bill Fell” makes his point rather crudely, the connection between decline of racist attitudes and policies amongst Southern Democrats and the decline in votes received by Democrats it the South is a point to be considered, as most Georgia Democrats in the 1900s had staunchly racist attitudes and policies and used this rhetoric to get elected. It seems that this xenophobia has transferred to mostly gays (who’s worried about Haditha; gays are trying to get married people!) and occasionally immigrants nowadays, but the point still lingers that the party that exploits fear and hate the best is typically the party that has success in this country, and in the South in particular.
For examples of racist Southern Dems, see: Lester Garfield Maddox, Richard Russell, Jr., Theodore G. Bilbo, Ellison D. Smith, James Eastland (who also supported violence in support of his racist rhetoric), and the list goes on and on and on. These are men who served within the last fifty to a hundred years, and I find it hard to believe that the racist attitudes/policies permeated by these men have no effect on modern political society. [And just to emphasize the breadth of the hatred propogated by these men, the most (in)famous racist of them all, Strom Thurmond with this wonderful quote: “”I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”]
And for a complete view of racism as an institution in Southern American politics (especially amongst Democrats), read the 1956 Southern Manifesto supporting a continuation of Jim Crow policies that was signed by nearly 100 members of Congress.
I wouldn’t say that the entire downfall of the Democrats in the South was propagated by the decline in racist attitudes of elected officials (see Jimmy Carter as an exception), but I would venture to say that it DID have an effect on the party’s long term relationship with the Southern voter.
And yes, I AM a white male, I am an independent who thinks of the Dems and the Reps as simply tools of big business and corporate puppets, I am happily married (to a woman for the homo bashers out there), I am college educated (another trait which seems to be frowned upon by Southerners who instantly classify the college educated as “elitists”), I do come from a lower middle class working family in South Carolina, and I work and pay taxes just like the rest of you. And I truly hate to see my tax dollars wasted promoting hate, intolerance, corruption, war, incompetence, etc., etc.
And finally, I am prepared for the tongue (guess it would be “eye” since I am reading it and not hearingn it) lashing I am about to receive.
By Lou
June 6, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this
I have no faith in the group in D. C. Whenever the going gets tough, they dance madly to the tunes that scare our more unsophisticated citizens - you know, like yelling for more border control, whipping up a frenzy about gay marriage, teaching evolution. Makes me sick. We need honest discussion about: income tax reform, the deficit, global warming, health care, Social Security…a laundry list of items. We may have 50 states, but, we are one Country. Neither party Dems or GOP catches my attention.
By sct
June 6, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
The south’s worst nightmare:
Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Guilliani in ‘08.
Could the south support “democrat” Rudy Guilliani? Would he win any primaries in the south?
By Fave
June 6, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
Let’s face it, when it comes to an intelligent informed electorate - the South is truly always and forever The Lost Cause.
A land full of not-so-loveable losers.
Lincoln, lads and ladies, was wrong.
By Dustin
June 6, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
If I’m not mistaken the flat tax idea is a Republican idea offered by Georgia Congressman John Linder.
By hewhoasks
June 6, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this
I’m in the North but I don’t look on the South as being filled with backward hicks.
Three things the Democrats could do that would appeal to Southerners:
Advocate fiscal responsibility and put some teeth in it, as happened under Clinton. Yes, the Republicans will instantly counter that with their tired old tax-and-spend propaganda but nationally they’ve lost all credibility with that. They tax and spend, they borrow and spend. They cut taxes in a way that favors the rich - and make up illogical fables to support such cuts.
Formulate a clear, honrest, respectable, achieveable plan for Iraq. It would be centered on the US leaving Iraq with the date of that leaving to be decided by the governments of Iraq and of the US working together, and with the goal of a free, safe, democratic Iraq not being abandoned. That contrasts with the Bush goal if using Iraq as the site for bases to use to attack other countries in the region. With that goal (never explicitly stated but obvious form the conduct and the rhetoric) there is no actual plan or desire to leave Iraq: it isn’t part of the grand plan.
Advocate respect for the Constitution and the law.
In addition the Democrats could make it clear that they advocate and will encourage and particpate in real, open, honest debate about significant issues of national importance. That would be real discuassion and debate in the Congress, real discussion and debate in the press and media. Rather than choose a course of action in secret and then try to sell it using propaganda techniques actually engage in discussion, as happened in the 1st century of the US’ existence, as was ably participated in and moved forward by Southerners, among others.
In none of these areas will the Democrats be perfect, neither as a party nor as individuals. No government and no party is ever going to be perfect.
By Mark
June 6, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
To Bill Fell: Just FYI - Republicans introduced Civil Rights legislation in the 60’s, Democrates fought it hardcore. Why would racists then desert to the Republican party, the party that basically gave blacks their civil rights? How the Dems became the party of the black voter is beyond me……
By Brill
June 6, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
To All, I re-read my post questioning whether a politician would misrepresent himself to get elected. That is the most idiotic thing posted all day and it was posted by me. I apologize to all who read it and might have been made a little dumber. I am truly shamed.
By Van
June 6, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
When one looks at the current democratic leadship, Nancy Pelosi, why would anyone vote for this party. Pelosi, leader of the Progessive Caucus, is one of the most liberal in congress.
She wants to government, your wallet actually, to provide universal health care, protect private pensions and secure social security. Lofty ideas, but who is going to pay for it? We will.
Letting the ineffective government stooges control our lives is not a wise choice. We need strong conservative leaders that will bring in a smaller government and divest itself of the overpowering need to control all aspects of our lives.
Already the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. From this we can assume one important item, If you earn a living and pay taxes, the federal government thinks you are one of the wealthy. This is proven by the democrats saying that the tax breaks only help the wealthy.
By KC
June 6, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
To all those posting about Dems fighting Civil Rights legislation in the 60’s: Those were almost, to a man, hard line southern conservative Democrats. These same men eventually spawned the modern Republican party in the south. The liberal Republicans that fought for Civil Rights mutated into a new wing of the Democratic Party. Let’s get our historical facts straight. Ultimately it’s less about party and more about philosophy. Conservative versus Liberal, not Democrat versus Republican. Lincoln Chafee is a Republican and he could NEVER get elected in the South. Not even on his best day.
Have a great day everybody. Republican and Democrat alike.
And when I say “versus” I mean in the civilized sense, not in the “all the guys on the other side are evil and should be destroyed” sense. I am a liberal Democrat but I would weep for our country if both viewpoints weren’t everpresent and being heard.
By NOYB
June 6, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Apparently if the Democrats would all follow Ralph Reed’s example of robbing millions of dollars from the people who hired him to represent their interests while only receiving thousands from those whom oppose those interests they would be more electable. Oh, wait, perhaps they’re too busy grieving their children who actually fought and died in this war the Conservatives were so eager to start but are completely unwilling to serve in.
Remember, you can’t spell Conservative without Cons.
By NOYB
June 6, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this
Apparently if the Democrats would all follow Ralph Reed’s example of robbing millions of dollars from the people who hired him to represent their interests while only receiving thousands from those whom oppose those interests they would be more electable. Oh, wait, perhaps they’re too busy grieving their children who actually fought and died in this war the Conservatives were so eager to start but are completely unwilling to serve in.
By Blessed Liberal
June 6, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this
I agree with Angry Liberal Guy. It is unbelievable to me how this president has played on peoples ignorance and fears and made it work! I don’t know what a democratic leader would have to do to win the south. I have been here for years and I sure can’t figure it out. Maybe if they bring back the Dixie flag, southerners will pay attention. The state is so anti-Atlanta (which a lot of people see as anti-black) that we can not come together on anything. What rural Georgia needs to realize is that like it or not Atlanta brings in money for this state. If it were not for Atlanta, we’d be no different than Mississippi or Alabama. We’d just be another poor southern state with low test scores supporting the stereotype that all southerners are stupid.
The best thing the Dems can do is get a backbone. Pick an issue, support it and stay with it. Stop being weak to what the conservative’s “think” the American people want. Back in the 60’s, most elected officials, especially in the south would have never voted on any type of civil rights. Sometimes you have to do what is right and not necessarily what is popular. All of our elected officials today on both sides do not realize that. Who really cares about gay marriage? Why is this such a big issue? If you don’t want gays to marry then don’t marry a gay person! We have so many bigger problems the Dems could bring attention to like bringing home our troops in Iraq, dealing with Iran, North Korea and Sudan. Bringing back our high level of respect in the world instead of being the laughing stock. Give us some idea on how and why the gas prices seem to stay so how and what can be done to bring them down to something reasonable. Stop the inflated housing market. Most middle income families cannot afford to live in the cities they work in and that is a disgrace. Stop outsourcing jobs. When an engineer makes $100.000 a year looses his job, then his un-employment runs out and he has to take a job at Wal-Mart, the economy is NOT getting better! Global warming and other environmental issues need to be addressed. The Republicans talk about states rights but ignore women’s rights. They are pro-life and support the death penalty! They are a wacky bunch. The dems need to stand up for something, anything and then we can win!
By an independent
June 6, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
To Van: The size of the government has increased greatly under the watch of Bush.
You sound like a borderline anarchist who wants no government at all. I assume you are a libertarian.
By hewhoasks
June 6, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this
*By T.J.
June 6, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
I’ve been reading these kinds of comments for years, but the arrogance of some liberals remains truly breathtaking.
According to these people, any Georgian who disagreees with them and their policies is an easily-led, ignorant, racist, backward-thinking, science-hating, bible-thumping Southerner.*
No, T.J., it’s more like enough Georgians have those tendencies to swing the elections. There are many people whose vote can be “bought” by proper manipulation of a single issue, even if that issue isn’t an important political issue (despite the hammering by politicians who desire to avoid elections decided on the real issues.)
I specify “Georgians” only because you specified “Georgians.” It’s not a trait or phenomenon confined to the South nor even to the right.
It is, however, currently true that those who most exploit such voter vulnerability to manipulation are Republicans.
The cure, as far as I’m concerned, is better education so that the voters will be prepared to decide issues on the basis of fact and logic, making exploitative propaganda techniques at first powerless and eventually an actual disadvantage. Then Republicans, too, would have to campaign on the basis of fact and logic - to the advantage of all. A better press could help.
*By The Stopper
June 6, 2006 01:38 PM
I think The Stopper and Jeff had particularly good posts
Hey, I don’t have to sit here and take this… oh. um, thanks, John. I want to discuss something you brought up:
It seems to me the Democrats need to work hard to shed the perception that they view strong religous faith as a disqualification for an elected official.
When I hear stuff like that, I really wonder where this “perception” comes from.*
I suspect you know quite well where that perception arises: it’s false propaganda put out by those who see value accruing to them by maintaining the link between the extremist fundamentalists and the far-right Republicans (that is, both camps favor such a lie.)
Obnoxious advocacy of forcing one’s own twisted form of religious belief on everybody ought to be a disqualification for public office - but that’s as perceived by enough voters, not as a law or official policy.
By Earl
June 6, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
We need strong conservative leaders that will bring in a smaller government and divest itself of the overpowering need to control all aspects of our lives.
The Republicans have been in control of all branches of the federal government, and most of the States, for more than five years now. When do you think they will begin spending less, making government smaller, stop borrowing billions from foreign governments, and get out of the personal aspects of our lives which are none of their business? Just curious.
By Sam
June 6, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
How can a Democrat be elected in a state wide election?
Easy, stop telling the truth! Stop standing up for individual human rights (a woman’s right to control her own body or a prisoner’s right not to be tortured to death), stop pointing out the catastrophic failures of the Bush administration (9/11, Iraq, Katrina, The Economy), stop complaining that 58 million Americans have no insurance, quite saying Bush is a draft dodging frat boy who lied and sent our troops to die in his phony war on terror, deny ever atrocity, claim to be a good Christian doing God’s will and let blind faith take over for common sense, swear the media has a liberal bias (even though all media outlets are corporate owned, profit motivated, mega businesses), hire corrupt lawyers to sue if you don’t get your way, when in power appoint unqualified cronies to sensitive, highly technical positions to ensure the truth is covered up and all your rich friends get richer.
In other words become a Republican!
By an independent
June 6, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
an except from a particularly moving interview with Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont (I think he is often referred to as a Democratic Socialist) talking about the future of progressives in this country.
Q: Is this a particularly ripe moment for change?
Sanders: I think it is. Given the fact that poverty is growing, more and more Americans are losing health insurance, health care costs are going up, the middle class is shrinking, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider, we have lost 2,000 soldiers in Iraq, we’re spending some $300 billion there, and Bush has no idea of an exit strategy. Add all of those things together and the real question should be asked, how is it conceivable that he is even at 40 percent?
That speaks to the weakness of the opposition. People do not like George Bush. But I think it’s fair to say that they are not flocking to the Democratic Party, or see the Democrats as a real alternative.
Q: So what’s your message to progressives?
Sanders: We have got to change the political culture in America. We need a political revolution. That means we are working on politics not just three weeks before an election but 365 days a year. We have to develop a strong economic message which says every American is entitled to health care through a national health care program. And we’re not going to allow these large corporations to push through trade agreements which allow them to throw Americans out on the street and run to China. We’re not going to give tax breaks to billionaires and then cut back on the needs of our elderly or poor or kids or education. We’re not going to privatize Social Security—in fact, we’re going to strengthen it. We’re going to provide quality education for every kid in America, from preschool through college. We have to take on these corporate leaders who are selling out the American people, whose allegiance is now much more to China than it is to the United States. If we have the courage to take these people on, I think we can overwhelm Bush and his friends.
Why is it that two-thirds of white, rural men voted Republican? Why? That’s what we have to address. That’s crazy. These people are working longer and longer hours. They can’t afford to pay $3.50 for a gallon of gas. They’re losing their jobs. So why do they vote for President Bush? And the Republican Party? We’ve got to address this.
It’s very easy to make fun of George Bush, but that ain’t going to do it. What we have to do is knock on doors and go into communities where there are people who disagree with us on certain issues.
And we have to talk to them. They’re our friends. They’re our allies. They’re our co-workers. We can’t see them as enemies.
That’s easier said than done.
All over this country you have progressive communities like Madison and Burlington, but we’ve got to go well, well, well outside of those communities. We’ve got to go to the rural areas. We’ve got to go where a lot of working people are voting Republican.
We just can’t talk to each other. That’s too easy.
By an independent
June 6, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten and all:
I am glad to see this blog is more civilized than the Luckovich blog that has been overtaken by extremists from both sides who use incessant name calling and other unuseful tactics in their “debates”, particularly the one kid who posts nonstop links to right wing media articles to “prove” his “points” (such as the AJC being a promoter of hate and racism and anyone with a nonconservative thought being a “pinko”).
I don’t agree with much that you say Mr. Wooten, but I respect that you have an opinion and have opened up this blog for what appears to be good debate and civil discourse.
By Fave
June 6, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Hey, Johnny Rebs, I thought that Mr. Wooten’s new cyberpaper was going to shun political correctness - sure some of us paint with a broad bush, but you have to admit that for centuries Georgia has been an intellectual vacuum, that for centuries many of your pappys and grandpappys were slavers, slave rapers, lynchmobbers and Klansmen, and that rural Georgia has been an economic backwater at least since 1865. Georgia schools have for centuries been among the worst in the US, and Georgians have been supporting cockamamie demagogue race-baiting and gay-bashing politicians and preachers since the beginning of the Republic.
Any discussion of what the Democrats can do in Georgia has to begin with a realistic and honest assessment of the Georgia electorate.
I wish to Gawd that more of you were smarter, less prejediced, less hate-filled, less superstitious, better educated, but wishin’ don’t make it so.
So - help me out here folks - where do we start?
Maybe the Dems sponsor a big tractor pull, or a NASCAR driver?
I, for one, support a re-secession. Pandering to the superstition and stupidity of the typical GOP voters gets us nowhere.
Lincoln was right about slavery, but wrong about the South remaining in the Union.
By sct
June 6, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
The bill for every American for the Iraq war is now about $20,000.00.
The drug benefit plan adds a staggering amount to the deficit, and cost way more than advertised.
The national debt has risen to nearly $8.4 trillion. The House has approved and sent to the Senate legislation that would raise the cap to $9.62 trillion.
We have 250 million dollar bridges to no where.
This is the fault of Pelosi???
By Van
June 6, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Earl,
That is my point, we need strong conservative leadership, we haven’t had it in quite some time.
By Van
June 6, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
sct,
Who said it was Pelosi’s fault? Typical lefty.
BTW, the bridge to nowhere was removed from the budget, by the conservatives.
Medicare Part D, was another boondoggle. Instead of providing a benefit to those in true need, they forced everyone on to it.
Personally, I think it would have been cheaper to enroll those that needed a drug plan in a private group insurance plan, but then that would take “power” - money - out of the hands of Congress.
By
June 6, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this
I’m a native Atlantan and a son of the South. I grew up in a split poltical party household. I learned at an early age you were either a Republican or Southern Democrat. Yankee Democrats were to be distrusted as they embodied liberal views that didn’t jive with those of a souther Republican or Democrat. To answer your question, here are three things that the national, liberal leaning Democratic party could do that would fly in the South: 1) Nothing 2) Nothing 3) Nothing. After 40 years of growing up southern, many of us still don’t care how they do it up north and the liberal Democratic party is dominated by northeastern liberals with a few west coast affiliates. Sorry to say, they just don’t get the South. It’s especially insulting when, every four years, liberal politicos attempt to secure votes by pandering to so-called southern values and then head back north and act is if they believe true southerners bought their rhetoric.
By sct
June 6, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Van, Alaska will keep the 454 million that Congress set aside for the 2 bridges, and technically the state can use the transportation funds for any project it chooses, including the bridges.
By Lyrazel
June 6, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
Ways Dems could win the South and other foolish musings………….
Yes, I doubt there is a candidate that could fill these……so why dont we just outsource the job?
By John
June 6, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
To Tyler, the f*, the democrats are filled with people like you. The only nice thing I can say about you is that you can’t multiply.
By Sam
June 6, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
If you think racist attitudes have declined in the South, or any other region of the country, you are not in the reality based world. Thinly veiled racism was the key to the Southern strategy that changed many so-called Democrats into the New Reagan Republicans. It also sold well in California, Michigan and every other state where white guys felt threatened. They don’t use the N-word anymore, at least not in public. Saint Ronnie, Newt, Boortz and the boys used their own code words like welfare queens, inter-city dwellers and the condescending pooooor people.
The gay marriage issue was like “a gift from Above”. The Republicans managed to unite ignorant people of all races with their common fear and hatred of homosexuals. Fear of loss or hope for gain motivates these people to vote against their own financial best interest in every election. Give them some group to hate and blame, lately illegal immigrants, and they will fellow you anywhere. KKKarl Rove knows this, tha