Thinking Right

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:

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.

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:

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, that’s how they keep winning.

By tspec

June 6, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Honestly after what we’ve seen the last 6 years, all a person has to do is say they are a DEM to get my vote!!!!!!!

By

June 6, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

You blue dogs (dixiecrats) are what is destroying the democratic party. Baucus is right now trying kow tow to the republicans on the estate tax and give them another victory.

Repeal the 16th & 17th Ammemdments? jeesh! Some of you guys should pull a Dick Shelby and leave. Being republican lite is no strategy. How about Nathan (bad) Deal?

Until the democratic leadership grows a pair and say “GO TO HELL ZELL” they will continue to lose.

By Chris B

June 6, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Here are the three things Democrats can do to be competitive in the South again.

1.) Get behind the Fair Tax.(tax reform) 2.) Military Reform: A quicker, faster, more efficient military. That uses more technology. 3.) Stop being so damn arrogant!

By RL

June 6, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding me? If the Democrats could be trusted to not grow the government?

You even point out that the Republicans been growning spending at a record pace for the last FIVE YEARS. If the south cared about growing spending they would NOT be voting Republican. Clearly the majority in the south cares more about things like god, guns and gays than any real pragmatic issue having to do with governance.

By RL

June 6, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

By the way… the Democrats don’t need the south. Watch how many seats they pick up in the northeast, midwest and west this year. Places where people might actually care about a competent government.

You have states like Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada that are trending blue. Then look at the Republican corruption in places like (well everywhere but for now…) Ohio and Kentucky and you will find that a Democrat can and probably will win the White House without one southern state. Maybe the south should consider going back to the confederacy… and take Utah, Wyoming and Idaho with you…

By Jim Wooten

June 6, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

For me, at least, this has been a productive discussion. I appreciated Southern Democrat’s effort to fashion an appeal that could be successful. The post contained some strong points — better frankly than much of what I hear coming out of the party at the national level. In today’s postings, the discussion right after lunch was particularly engaging. Terry at 1:38, KC at 1:44, hewhoasks at 2:27, Chris B at 4:51, along with a couple earlier in the day — the stopper at 9:32 and Jeff at 10:37 — probably could have gotten together and drafted positions that would have a lot of appeal in this region. I’m a little bowled over by the hostility to religion that I hear from liberals — and that I read in letters to the editor whenever a Jerry Falwell or some other presumed voice of the Right happens to be in the news. I agree with some of the posts here that this is an issue, like national security, where national Democrats have to come to terms with the belief systems of Southern voters before their appeals can be successful.

By Real Dem

June 6, 2006 05:18 PM | Link to this

Jim, I don’t there is hostility is toward religion itself, nor even toward people of faith. This “hostility” is triggered by the intent of some to insert their religion into government where it does not belong, and to use their beliefs to control the personal, private behavior of others, and to arbitrarily decide which US citizens will have which inalienable rights.

The continuing mantra that “Democrats are anti-religion” comes straight from the Republican propaganda (vote-snagging) machine, not from any reality that I’ve ever witnessed.

By Gary Jones

June 6, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

If you want tosee who can win watch Mike McGraw a pro-life,pro-family ,pro-defense fiscal conservative who believes the minium wage should be raised, belives the current congress is incompetent as is the Bush Administration and has been invited to Dinner with President Bush and the RNCC who don’t know that MCGraw is the unopposed conservative Democrate who will upset Lynn Westmoreland in Nov

By sct

June 6, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

In Georgia religion is politics. Abortion, homosexuality, Ten Commandments, evolution are issues in the news everyday.

If you are going to speak out on these issues and make them a large part of your platform you should expect to hear from the other side as well, and not expect silence in return.

Sadie Fields, Ralph Reed are prime examples of Georgians that mix religion and politics.

By Jonny

June 6, 2006 05:39 PM | Link to this

Three things:

1) Hammer the GOP on its runaway fiscal spending. The GOP is hardly conservative on matters fiscal. Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.

2) Support a fence that stretches every inch of the US southern border. It’s a labor issue because the illegal workers are killing wages for working class Americans. Sell it that way.

3) Support the 2nd Amendment/stop alienating gun owners. Howard Dean’s state (Vermont) doesn’t require law abiding citizens that can legally purchase a firearm to even have a permit to carry. Use that as the new Dem policy on the 2nd Amendment.

The Dems can keep their environmentalism, social safety net, and pro-gay stances. I’d vote for them if they did the above three things because the GOP has proven itself to be unworthy of my vote. Looks like another Libertarian year for me…

By julie

June 6, 2006 06:00 PM | Link to this

Ike Newkirk could win in GA in a heartbeat!

Come on, Ike…What do you say?

By CDog

June 6, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

Democrats could appeal to traditional Republican voters in the South if they:

(1) Stop the runaway government spending currently perpetuated by the Republicans. Become deficit hawks. Balance the budget. Reduce the national debt. The problem is that most national Dems want to spend even more than the Republicans.

(2) Allow for diversity of ideas and positions in their party. The Republican party has people who are on both sides of the abortion issue and the gay-marriage/civil union issue. The Dems are pretty much a monolith and squelch any dissenting opinions (Bob Casey, Joe Lieberman, and I am sure Ben Nelson is next).

(3) Abandon the anti-war wing of the party. Take a strong, principaled stand on national security (including securing the borders) and combating terrorism worldwide.

As far as a Dem who could win a statewide election in Georgia, it would have to be someone who is a Democrat in name only. Their core views/values are way out of the mainstream. Once Cox and Taylor are gone, they have no one coming down the pipeline.

By Brian Curtis

June 7, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

CDog and Jonny have good ideas, but I’m afraid SCT is more accurate: in Georgia, voters think with their religious bigotry first and foremost.

Unless Democrats abandon all the social principles they stand for—equal treatment for gays, minority and women’s rights, reproductive choice—they simply don’t stand a chance in the backward South.

By James Stephenson

June 7, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

The biggest problem with the Dems right now is their big left wing.

I vote mostly Republican, heck I voted for Bush and voted against the Marriage Amendment that was recently struck down. Which means a heck of a lot of people who voted for Kerry voted for that stupid Amendment. So don’t call me a homophobe. I could care less what people do in their bedrooms, as long as it does not involve kids or animals.

One of the biggest problems with the Democrats is their willingness to blame America for all of the world’s ills. There are no more JFK’s left on the Left. ” Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Now that was a democrat I could vote for. That was a man who understood that America with all of her warts was still the shining city on the hill. Sadly, those Democrats have all left the party. At that point in history, the 1960’s, you had liberal republicans and conservative democrats, basically there were parts of both parties that most people could relate too.

As far as the current fiscal craziness, everyone knew the Bushes were part of the liberal Republicans and believe that it is Government’s job to fix problems. Which is another issue a lot of people have with Democrats. Half the people here talk about balance the budget, then talk about how universal health care would win them elections. How are you going to pay for that? And when you raise taxes to pay for that, how will you deal with the 10-15% unemployment that those kinds of Tax rates cause?

Look at those countries in Europe. Recently the Economic director of Sweden said that by American standards, 45% of their people live in Poverty. But, I guess as long as you have free health care, poverty is ok. Last time I checked, more people were running to America from socialist countries than running from America to them.

Looking at the demographics of Europe, they are in trouble. Pretty soon the best and brightest of Europe will head to the US or expect to be taxes into submission. One of the reasons Europe is not having babies is their extensive taxation. It is impossible to live on the money they get to take home.

Contrast that to myself. In 1992, I made 7,000 dollars a year. I lived with a girl and we made it pretty well. 7k a year. Granted neither of us had a Drug or Alcohol problem, and we did not smoke. But we lived ok. Now I make in the top 50% of the country, no College Education, although, I have started school recently at 38.

I want a viable second party. It increases the competition and competition is good for the soul, it makes the ideas better, it makes the candidates better. It gives me a choice. But as long as I hear Democrats talk about socialized medicine, how America is evil, how we should set a date to withdraw from Iraq (letting the insurgents know when they can claim victory), how people in the South are all homophobic, racist, bible thumping ignorant people they will have little chance getting my vote in national elections. Pity. Pity for me, and pity for them.

As far as Demographics, in 2010, the red states populations will grow some more, the blues, Northeastern will lose more and the power will shift more to the South and Mid-West.

Congrats Mr. Wooten, this post has been instalinked.

By early

June 7, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

How about becoming the party for responsible government. With that I mean police government officials that think it’s thier right to get freebies because of there office. Then stick like glue to this principal. Let the other party win with sleezy candidates and have the press expose the excesses. Then come to the people and say we are for resposibility of public officials. Right now politics boil down to “sure I’m bad but the other person is worse”

By Eric

June 7, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

We’d all be better off if anyone who called themselves a Republican or Democrat would drop completely freaking dead.

By cliff zeider

June 7, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Hey The Democrat party has disolved like a Tums in water, The last good one is Zell Miller, a truly great American. Cliff

By Boxing Alcibiades

June 7, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

The Democrats can only make headway in the south if they agree to an ideological shift — the positions you describe get one killed in the Democratic primary.

Nevertheless, a Democrat who had sufficient power within the party to credibly run as a left-libertarian candidate, would do well. Given the party’s current division between soft-socialists and communitarians, that’s a no-go. (These are discrete terms in polisci — ask around if you don’t know them, cuz I can’t define them here w/o exploding your comments box)

By Blessed Liberal

June 7, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Excellent and honest points made by Brill. I agree with you. I have some conservative views when it comes to our borders and terrorist, but as far as legislating morality, I draw the line there. The sad thing about the Republicans is that they constantly use their religious base to push issues and they are always pushing include ignorance, hate, and bigotry. What happened to forgiveness and loving thy neighbors? It seems that a lot of religious people use the versus of the bible that work for them and ignore the ones that don’t.

Van you don’t make any sense. It is common knowledge that the top 1% of the wage earners have been getting just about 100% of the tax breaks in one way, shape or form. It is the middle class earning less the $100,000 annually that really feels the pain. For some reason, southern middle class thinks it falls into the same categories as the real upper class and the truth is that they just look down on you and laugh at you for helping them get richer. Then it is not enough for the Reps to control the finances, they have to control your life thru what they consider to be moral values.

Oh yeah, to “an independent”, way to go! When you cannot argue intelligently, revert to name calling!
Sam, excellent points! You are very intelligent. RL very good points as well! I liked the “guns, gods and gays” philosophy.. Jonny, I would have to agree with you too, great ideas, hope the Dems can follow through

Next let’s not be stupid. We all know the history of civil rights, who started it, who supported it, etc. The faces changed as time went on as the democrats were more for human and individual rights as the republicans went to supporting those that “look like, act like and think like me” attitude. They do not support any creative thinking or alternative view point. And do not get me started on crooks. Dick Cheney, Haliburton, Enron, all oil company executives making record breaking profits. Do I really need to go on?

The next great presidential election would be Hillary vs. Condeleeza! It would be great to see which way people would vote because it would create a vote based on true character.

By judge

June 7, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

It’s funny to sit here and read some of the comments from people like ‘Angry Liberal Guy’ and hold a straight face. Damn right he’s ‘Angry’, as are the rest of the ‘Liberals’. They’re ALL sore Losers. Come on, Libs, you know I’m right, which is really just burning you up inside:)

By Jon

June 7, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

One of the best ways to manipulate votes by way of a one-time adjustment to the Democrat Socialist message would be to make sure that said message continues to flow from little deranged website hosts who willfully pander to that part of the Left that gives every appearance of being clinically disordered.

You know, the paranoids, the projectors, the welfare abusing thieves, the wholely intolerant morals-hating secular humanists, etc.

Continue to be a destination for dysfunction rather than a bone fide political base containing principle and reason and do so via the most outrageous voices you can find. They attract others and your ‘06 or ‘08-only temporary message will hit home with that growing base of social misfits.

They, after all, are who we’re fast becoming. Go get em!

By Austin Mike

June 7, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

I’m reminded of the old song, “If I had a hammer….” by the question of “What would the Dems have to do to win the South?” If the Dems were NOT the Dems, they would have a chance of winning in the South. And if I had a hammer, I could hammer all over the world….

By Houckster

June 7, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

The last thing the Democrats need to do is to try and one-up the Republicans in pandering to the lowest common denominator. No one’s going to beat the Republicans at that game. That they had Hanoi Zell working for them the last time and this just made things worse.

Democrats have to stand up for what they believe and we have go toe-to-toe with people like Mr. Wooten who want to characterize a basically centrist party as “liberal”. We have to fight to get fair media coverage too. The “liberal” press doesn’t exist any more if it ever did. The Democrats have to fight much harder to get media coverage than the Republicans do. Even CNN seems willing to bend over backwards for the Hard Right.

People like Mr. Wooten have no idea what “liberal” means and by the looks of it, they seem to have discarded the core values of conservatism that complemented liberalism in this country. Democrats might with some success claim that the Republicans don’t even represent true conservative thought any more, merely the politics of exclusion and elitism.

We have to fight so that people understand that it’s not “whining” to be concerned about the welfare of others. After 6 years of brain-dead public policy by the rabid Right, I think people are will listen to a coherent message from a party with vision.

Here is what the Democrats must articulate a coherent vision for: 1) a national energy policy (which will also deal with a large portion of our balance of trade and security problem too); 2) rebuilding the Medicare and Social Security systems; 3) remove the ruinous tax breaks for Americans in the upper income levels

By Jon

June 7, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

By the way, isn’t it interesting how your entire premise, leftwingers, is to elect a Democrat Socialist? Telling, that.

Shouldn’t it be to find/create a candidate that represents the country’s best constitutional interest, thereby seeing to its survival?

Meaning no more voting yourself the resources of the next guy and calling it compassion?

The Left — including half the folks posting here — is no more about the constitutional best interest of this separation-of-powers Republic than they are about letting the private sector finally do its job so bad government won’t have to step in and make it impossible.

Oops, that’s a cause-and-effect conundrum for you? Prefer to create victims so that you can create plans to make more victims? Yep, and it’s only compounded by columnists who don’t have the sense to realize that limited government and that division of power are infinitely more important to this country’s survival than ginning up a way to elect a Socialist just because s/he’s a “Democrat.”

“Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

I’ve seen John Kennedy and friends, you’re no Democrats. You’re a bread-throwing ampitheatre…

By Brian Curtis

June 7, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Anybody who confuses socialists with Democrats really hasn’t had any experience with truly leftist ideas. The Democrats are a rightward-drifting centrist party with strong corporate ties.

To characterize the modern Democratic party as “leftist” is laughable.

By Ron in the South

June 7, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Something for all Democrats (locally and nationally). Redefine and respond to U.S. foreign policy in Iraq et al for what it really is: a profoundly liberal policy (and liberating one too). And its directly countering a global move to the extreme right. Amazingly this once liberal high ground has been captured by a right of center President. Democrats appear to defy logic or real world wisdom in their arguements or worse they appear to be placing their fortunes ahead of our country’s interest. Its a huge barrier to voting Dem. Stop this opposition for the sake of it routine.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

June 7, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

The premise of the question is flawed. It is essentially asking, “How should Democrats change their ideology (or say they’ve changed their ideology) in order to win an election in the South?”

It would be dishonest to do so, although it regularly works for the Republicans, who really don’t care about banning gay marriage. Saying they did worked for them in 2004 by getting the social/religious conservatives out to vote, but they didn’t do anything about it then and they won’t do anything about it now. They’re just trying to keep their jobs in 2006.

Democrats stand for what we stand for:

1) responsible government spending (something we’ve never had from Bush- Clinton had balanced budgets; Bush has record deficits)

2) effective national security (not ignoring intelligence information because you’re vacationing in Texas and then invading an unrelated sovereign nation)

3) alternative energy sources (which will lessen the threat of terrorism by reducing our need for involvement in the Middle East, as well as benefitting our citizens financially and our environment)

4) equal rights for all citizens, including marriage and civil unions for gay Americans.

5) a separation of church and state, where religious beliefs do not dictate laws, government policy, or social regulations

6) using science instead of mythology to dictate how we approach issues such as the environment and global warming, education, and medicine

7) ensuring that the lower class doesn’t grow exponentially because a very small group of wealthy individuals (see Exxon, Enron, Halitburton, etc.) give themselves more and more at the expense of having the middle class disappear completely

This is what Democrats are about and if it won’t win them elections in the South (or anywhere else for that matter), then so be it. If you believe something is right you must stand by that belief, regardless of what “benefit” you may receive by abandoning your principles.

While more progressive red states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, as well as some states like North Carolina, Louisianna, and a few others may soon turn blue, I doubt Democrats will earn victories in the heart of the South- GA, SC, Tenn, Miss, Al- anytime soon.

That’s okay with me. If those people don’t agree with our principles, I’d rather not have their vote than to abandon our beliefs.

By Brian Curtis

June 7, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Very well said, Ron. Those are good Democratic Party principles, and I support them. If they’re not popular in the Deep South, too frickin’ bad.

They’re principles, and I won’t suggest abandoning them to pander and deceive the way the Republicans do. The South just isn’t worth it.

By Blixx

June 7, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Things the Dems can do to win:

1) Show some respect.

2) Show some respect.

3) Show some respect.

Who insults voters, and then becomes enraged when they don’t get elected? Dems—because they’re smarter than everyone else.

By Brian Curtis

June 7, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Respect is earned, Blixx. What have Georgia voters done to earn the respect of the nation? Supported the dismantling of their own support structure, the offshoring and outsourcing of jobs for their own working class, and passed bigoted resolutions against gays.

If appealing to people like that is the key to winning in Georgia, then the h-ell with Georgia.

By 4jkb4ia

June 7, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

On my trips to Nashville and Perdido Beach, Alabama, I was convinced that the South is a foreign country. It is clear from voting figures that white Southerners began to consider voting Republican because of civil rights and voted Democratic because Southern Democrats appealed nakedly to white supremacy and were able to control Northern Democrats not to do very much. Even today, Republicans use some of the same appeals based on “custom” and “culture” to win votes in the South. If the Democrats run a southerner like Mark Warner in 2008, they have a shot, because I do not see Virginia as that different from Georgia in terms of cultural obstacles the candidate has to overcome. A candidate such as Feingold may also have a shot because he has always been consistent in his personal beliefs. A candidate perceived as trying to pander to the loudest voices in the party should get nowhere with voters on the fence.

By hewhoasks

June 7, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

By Jim Wooten June 6, 2006 05:08 PM For me, at least, this has been a productive discussion.

Yes, I think so too. Like Mike Luckovich I don’t much agree with you but you asked a worthwhile question and I (and others) tried to give a worthwhile answer. Now, today, I see the left-bashers moving in, just as they did on Mike Luckovich’s blog.

Keep asking good questions and keep trying to have a productive discussion and I’ll try to respond in the same spirit -despite the low-information content noise.

By DW

June 7, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

If the liberals are like Howard Dean and Michael Moore, then there is no hope for Democrats in the South. Cowardly liberalism may win in Europe, but it will not win too many major races in this country. Once the Democratic Party realizes this and does something about it, it can become a relevant party again.

By v

June 7, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

I have only one small idea.

Propose to require private insurers to permit coverage of dependants up to the age of 30, thereby mobilizing a very vocal and predominantly liberal university student movement throughout the south. It is stunning how many 20-somethings are uninsured, and how little they can do about it.

Not a huge issue, but a good mobilizer for a crowd which can sometimes be very effective at energizing an election.

By paul

June 7, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

(Which brings me to the biggest problem for Dems:

You can either hate Bush publicly, and spend most of your time critiquing his ability to lead, while at the same time pumping up his authority…

or go after his less popular underlings, presenting bush as a good guy, surrounded by all the wrong people.

You can’t have both-

either Bush is a terrible LEADER, or he is a good guy who follows bad advice. Everytime one of the cases is argued, it undercuts the other and makes dems look stupid.

In the effort to Nationalize the democratic party, you have ripped away the voices of debater within the party. Ask you 2000 vp nominee, also a good guy.

By Bruce

June 7, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

This thread is hysterical. Paranoia, intellectual dishonesty and withering contempt for the “pee-puhl” that liberals claim to be so concerned for. It servess as a perfect example of the trends that have rendered the Democrats dead as a national party.

Keep it up, “progressives!”

By Matt

June 7, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Small government, progressive taxation libertarianism.

Wins the South Park vote, drop kicks the race issue, marginalizes the Christian nuts, appeals to the fiscal conservatives, brings progressive redress into the game and is based on sound economic theory.

Wins all around, guarantees a landslide victory.

By Thief

June 7, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

Previously posted somewhere else, but here goes… 10 things the you Democrats can do to win votes in the South (and a lot of other places too!)

Of course, as Dennis Miller says, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

By paul

June 7, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

To add to Bruce’s comments:

the premise of the article is: “what can we say to convince people to vote for us.”

The problem? If you look like you are saying it for the sole purpose of getting votes, everybody is going to figure out that you don’t personal and passionately believe in the issue.

Both sides pander, but the GOP actually ‘looks’ like it has a strategy beyond just getting votes.

By ed

June 7, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm.

Frankly reading the comments left here by the various liberal readers makes it clear why the Democratic Party cannot make inroads into the South. It also makes clear why the Democratic Party is either unimaginative enough, unwilling or unable to split off the conservatives from the Republican Party when there is such an opportunity right now to do so.

But since this continued level of irascible confusion amuses me, I’ll leave well enough alone and let you liberals continue thrashing around.

And no. Providing healthcare coverage to 20-somethings won’t do it. If you’re 20+ years old and you don’t have healthcare coverage, then that’s pretty much because it’s not important to you. Otherwise you’d have it because it’s extremely inexpensive, relatively speaking, than if you were 50+.

By mtl

June 7, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Think Iraq has been a big winner for Dems?

What the dems must reconcile:

Go to

http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Look at Bush numbers during 10/04. Simply dreadful.

More than half the country thought it was a mistake, and his approval rating on Iraq was at best in the forties.

The reality is that he recieved the most votes of any president, and saw almost a 20% increase in voter support-remarkable for an incumbent in a ‘quagmire’. Hidden in these low approval numbers are the segment of the US population that votes.

Kerry and the Dem’s inability to capitalize on this shows what pariahs the dems have become on the most pressing issue of our time-foreign policy.

If the perception is that you will not be overly aggressive in the defense of this country, what will you defend? Our borders?

By ed

June 7, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Hmmmm.

Education: Quit sucking up to the teachers/educrats unions. They are 90% of the problem. Quit throwing bad money after good. If you’re spending $12K per student per year to see them fail and drop out

Amusingly enough this is probably one of the most important issues that Democrats are simply incapable of doing. The Democratic Party would be impoverished if they turned their backs on the various teacher’s unions. Yet the Democrats continued insistence on kowtowing to the teacher’s unions is gradually splitting off the African-American voters.

It’s unfortunate that the GOP has been unable to see the opportunity here by formulating a national plan to offer full-ride K1-K12 school vouchers to parents of school-age children. In one single move this would heavily damage the political and financial power of the teacher’s unions, revitalise many problem school districts and empower a huge multitude of parents who would be changed from pleading supplicants to customers with choices.

This alone would probably convert at least half of the African-American voter base towards voting for Republicans as they are usually the ones facing an intransigent school bureaucracy that considers them more pests and customers.

And of course the Democrats would have to oppose such measures because of it’s negative impact on the teacher’s unions. And thereby be forced to openly portray themselves as opposing the African-American community.

Or the Hispanic community as the same mechanisms would apply there as well.

By B. Taylor

June 7, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Keep screaming donks! You’re not screaming loud enough! America still isn’t hearing your message so scream louder!

I’m loving reading most of the above. Ann Coulter is right - GODLESS. Or for Dims, WHOLESS? Dimocrats become more irrelevant by the day and that is a good thing.

By James Stephenson

June 7, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Actually.

If the Democrats want to lose African Americans, all they have to do is keep on Pushing Gay Marriage. 73% of Georgia voted for that stupid Amendment. 55% of Georgia voted for Bush. I would imagine the people who voted for Kerry and the Amendment were African-American. And I would imagine quite a few people like myself, voted for Bush and against the Amendment.

In fact, everywhere that kind of Amendment went to vote, it averaged about 70% people voting for it. That is a lot of people who do not believe in Gay Marriage. Is it right, not in my eyes, but the people have spoken.

By Bob Y.

June 7, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

The biggest thing that the Democratic party can do is embrace its roots of being a pro-little guy party. Pro union worker not fat-cat. That means: be less hostle to the Christian religion, less hostle to responsible gun ownership, less hostle to the military, and more embracing of the “NASCAR” personality. In short the center of the party needs, be less Kennedy and more Zell Miller.

Man that’s hard to say …

By mtl

June 7, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Great plan Bob.

Tax the the corporations that hire the little guy, drive them out of the country.

You’d think the ‘little guy plan’ might be extended to include the little guy ‘companies’. Not even close.

Forget the gay issue as well. The problem is that African americans are buying homes faster than white Americans, entering middle class-once you go from getting a ‘refund’ after paying no taxes, versus paying taxes to support these ‘refunds’- all the while being accutely aware of how the problem manifests itself in the African-american community.

The erosion of the a/a democrats base is mostly due to the fact of the financial success of the demographic. The dirty secret is that if you keep blacks poor, they’ll continue to vote democrat. Give them opportunites to own their own home and work beyond minimum wage and they’ll no long be slaves to the dems. Does it make them republicans? No. Does it make them doubt the dems integrity? yes.

By Russ

June 7, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Every time I start to worry that Republicans might lose the majority, I listen to what liberals have to say and it picks me back up.

The condescension here is incredible. The basic liberal attitude seems to be, “We’re smarter than you are, and you would vote for us if you knew any better. Also, if you don’t vote for us, you’re a bigoted racist homophobe.” It jives with Howard Dean’s incredibly ignorant “I wanna be the candidate representing guys with pickup trucks and confederate flag decals.” Funny how most people don’t vote for folks who openly look down their nose at them.

I could offer several suggestions that the dems could do, like pumping up education or being more worker-union friendly(not union hierarchy friendly), but why bother? They won’t listen. Instead, they’ll do what most liberals on this forum have done - whine and cry that people are stupid and backwards if they don’t agree with the dems.

By Denmark Bound

June 7, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

3 things the Dem’s could do

Nominate a succesful Southern governor like Bredesen (TN). He solved the entitlments in TN. Run on a platform of doing the the US what he did in TN.

By Steve Kymes

June 7, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

If the Democrats ever want to return to power, they need to rally around the slogan, “Its freedom stupid!” The GOP has lost its way on so many issues that involve basic freedoms. They condone domestic spying and massive data collection for the sake of “national security” (such has always been the justification of totalitarian governments). They defend violations of the first, fourth, and fifth amendments that are embodied in the Patriot Act. They seek to impose their view of religious practice on all peoples (regardless of their faith) in the Federal Marriage Amendment, faith based initiatives, stem-cell research, and abortion restrictions. Need I go on?

The future of the Democratic party is not in trotting out the tired old “big government” solutions to the nation’s problems. To address those, they need to promote smart, market based solutions…but their big push should be in saying that they will reverse six year drive of the Bush administration and the Delay/Hastert wing of the GOP promoting government intrusion into our lives and attacking our most basic liberties. In doing so they would recast the electoral calculus by attracting disaffected independent and GOP libertarians, and create a new majority.

Scary thought for you ultra right-wing social conservatives huh? Don’t worry, the Dem leadership is too married to their old philosophy and constitutencies to move in this direction…just as the GOP has become captive to intolerant religious fundamentalists who seek to turn the U.S. into a theocracy and won’t return our liberties any time soon.

By mtl

June 7, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Bredesen solved entitlements?

Here’s the tenncare deal…

The state gets 1 federal dollar for every two it spends on health care. It’s the biggest federal entitlement going.

It works because other states are supporting the program, ergo this plan only works if you are a state that takes more federal money than you give.

Or in the case of mental health you can increase the cost of hospitalization, commensurate with other state rates. The state can declare it is losing money, but it was money that was never going to be actually earned, and you get the federal money to boot.

Bredesen is a good guy, but don’t give him credit for being propped up by the rest of the Country.

By mtl

June 7, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

A slogan about freedom, helping Dems?

Under Bush, we’ve seen the Ukraine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan liberated towards freedom.

If these countries getting freedom means little to dems, who is going to believe their sincerity when they discuss it here?

By Steve Kymes

June 7, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

The issue is not freedom abroad, the issue is freedom at home. Yes, we have seen countries liberated from tyranny abroad (you failed to mention the Balkan nations that were freed under Clinton). But at the same time we have seen the excuse of “national security” employed indiscrimately to impair our own treasured liberties.

Gaining freedom for others at the cost of our own is paying too high a price. Sadly, it is also a cost that is not necessary. We could have defeated the Taliban and Sadaam Hussein without the more draconian measures employed in the Patriot Act. Supporting the people of Ukraine and Lebanon in their struggle against their own tyrants was not assisted by data mining of my phone records (and other AT&T customers).

Of course, those who think that giving up liberty at home is the price we pay for other nations to gain freedom are not the consitutency that is looking for a political home; nor are those who believe this connection exists the people who will decide the next election.

By

June 7, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

On some level, there’s nothing Democrats can do; ever since the ’60s, Southern problems with the Democrats has been a tribal thing, a perception that the Democrats are the party of those who dis the South. Digby, the best liberal blogger, made this point recently: nothing, not even nominating moderate Southerners like Carter and Clinton and Gore, can ever fully erase the tribal opposition to the Democratic party.

And there is something bizarre about the fact that Democrats even care about the issue. Republicans don’t knock themselves out trying to win Senate races in Massachusetts any more. And why should Democrats and liberals feel bad about “condescending” to the South when Southerners (and fake Southerners like Bush) constantly make insulting and condescending comments about places like New York and Massachusetts?

Finally, there’s a distinction between doing the politically-smart thing and doing the right thing. It may be that being more hawkish would be politically smart, though I’m not convinced (remember, Max Cleland voted for the Iraq war resolution, and promptly lost his Senate seat). However, the Iraq war was a horrible military blunder that has made things worse for both Americans and Iraqis, and avoiding such blunders in the future is far more important than winning a Senate seat here or there. Joe Lieberman is being primaried not because he’s not left-wing (Kos is hardly left-wing anyway; his favorite politicians tend to be pro-gun Westerners like Brian Schweitzer), but because he supports policies that would get America into more disastrous wars. Politically smart, perhaps; but morally very wrong. Ultimately doing the right thing should be the first goal.

By Joe

June 7, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Winning over the south isn’t too hard: it would take just two things. One is being tough on national defense. Democrats really come off this way, even though they of course want to get al-Qaeda like everyone else. Kerry missed a HUGE opportunity here, since Bush has many errors here (Tora Bora being one that Kerry failed to exploit).

The second is economic common sense. Again, democrats understand free markets work best; they don’t do a good-enough job saying so or showing appreciation for the “little guy” who often is a shopkeeper.

If democrats were tough on defense and levelheaded on economics, that would basically deflate opposition except for social conservatives. I’ve always thought there’s been a real tension here in republicans: economic/defense repubs. vs. social repubs. I recall Tucker Carlson acting offended at being associated with “Jesusland” in that infamous map right after Kerry lost. Peel off other types, and those Christian bigots would be all alone and defanged.

By M.A.

June 7, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Joe — the problem is, what does “tough on national defense” mean? A lot of times, when I hear laments for the good old days of hawkish Democrats, I hear references to Democrats whose foreign policy was really not so hot. JFK? He got better, but in 1960 he won in part by flat-out lying about security issues (talking about a “missile gap” that didn’t exist). LBJ? Courageous man who put what was right above political gain (he basically sacrificed his party’s grip on the South in order to pass Civil Rights legislation), but he did get America into a pointless war and he lied quite a lot to get America into that war. (I’m always amazed that conservatives are so horrified when people say that Bush lied us into the Iraq war; leaders have lied us into war many times.) Scoop Jackson? Let’s face it: his hawkishness was based on a cartoonish exaggeration of the Soviet threat (we now know that the Soviets were not, by the ’70s, as strong as the hawks liked to say they were). If the Democrats can win only by a willingness to lie about foreign threats and start pointless wars, then unfortunately it’s not worth winning.

And yet I think there is a substantial subset of people who think that strength on foreign policy is the same thing as being willing to start lots of wars. It’s not; the best foreign-policy outcome is when you get what you want WITHOUT having to go to war. But as long as there are a sizeable chunk of voters who don’t get that dropping bombs is often a really bad idea, this will always be a problem for Democrats, because Democrats do represent the people who, well, think dropping bombs often doesn’t help.

Maybe if they bring back the draft, and people actually have to consider the potential consequences for themselves (or their kids) of going to war, then things will change. Until then, Democrats just need to give up on trying to win the votes of reflexive bomb-droppers. As JFK and LBJ proved, the only way to win those votes is to lie. A lot.

By Russ

June 7, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

MA, you have just managed to neatly summarize why the dems get no votes in the South - “you people are too stupid to know war is bad.” Sorry, but most of the folks I know figured that out a long time ago and look at it as the gravest of choices. However, between that and the choice of caving into tyrants, it is sometimes necessary.

The problem many in the South have is that democrats do not seem to want peace at all; they want ot be spared war, as if the absence of war was the same as peace. It isn’t. True peace is not just the absence of conflict - it is the presence of justice.

BTW, I am in the Army and can tell you we neither want nor need draftees. They would be disruptive. Still, I hope the dems do bring it up, for its a surefire way to cost themselves even more votes.

By shadowdoc

June 7, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Few commenters from the left are able to post without oblique or direct references to the stupidity of their fellow Southerners. Part of the problem with the political scene is an unwillingness to grant that the other side is acting in good faith and with the good of the nation in mind. Disrespect flows both ways, but as long as part of your calling as an “advocate” for your position includes categorizing the opposition as not simply stupid but also inherently evil, nobody will listen to you.

Things the DNC could do to get my attention:

None of these things are impossible, and most are centrist. Although having said that, it seems that impossible things are easier to do than centrist ones these days.

By mtl

June 7, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Steve-

Have you missed the news lately?

Radical Islamists, homegrown, were going to blow up parliment and behead the prime minister in Canada.

Domestic surveillance is going to just go away?

That is why there is a jury system: If the government goes beyond its authority,I’m going to nullify them with a single ‘not guilty’.

That is only in regards to events not terrorist related, but all events not terrorist related.

If you have people plotting to destroy your country inside your borders, you need a DOMESTIC invasion of privacy.

You trade freedom for security, which is the basis of almost all law. I’ll take the security for now…

By

June 7, 2006 05:02 PM | Link to this

Russ, you’ve pretty much just summed up the strange defensiveness of the South: you assume that anything negative anyone says is an insult to all Southerners. But there’s no reason for you to assume that. The reflexively-pro war stance is not part of Southern culture; it is found everywhere in the country, and everywhere in the world. And yes, some people are in fact too stupid to know that war is bad (you can hear them calling in to Rush or Hannity all the time), but I would never claim that most of them are Southerners.

The point is not “how do Democrats win in the South?” But “what is good foreign policy?” Invading Iraq was bad foreign policy; invading Iran would be worse foreign policy; and any halfway-decent politician needs to deal with the fact that calling for more wars is not good national-security policy, and war — even war to remove Saddam — is not automatically synonymous with justice. But people who don’t understand that are just as likely to live in New York or California as Georgia.

(Digbysblog.blogspot.com has a lot of good commentary over the years on this defensiveness — Any Democrat has to avoid saying anything that could even for a moment be interpreted as negative about the South, whereas when Trent Lott or George W. Bush says all kinds of horrible things about Massachusetts, John Kerry was man enough not to get huffy.)

Oh, and MTL — You don’t have to trade liberty for security. All you have to do is wiretap and eavesdrop within the law and with oversight; then you have both liberty and security. Bush’s position — “I have to break the law to make you safe” — violates liberty while bringing no discernable advantage on security. Not a good trade.

By

June 7, 2006 05:12 PM | Link to this

I don’t think that Bush has said he has broken any laws, nor has he.

On the contrary, he has gone out his way to include congress in his decisions.

Scenario: A terroist is captured driving a truck of ammonia nitrate…

He has a cell phone. Fearing imminency, I could formally submit 300 requests for wiretaps on phones, and await obtaining permission and signatures of judges, or go ahead, and have the judge review it within a timely manner.

Time is a factor.

By

June 7, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Um, the law says Bush is supposed to have the judge review it in a timely manner, but Bush has broken that law. The whole point of the NSA program is that it was not reviewed by judges (even after the fact, which the law allows for), and while individual members of Congress were briefed, they had no power to find out if they were getting full briefings, let alone prevent abuses.

The point of balancing liberty and security is that while the President may sometimes need to spy on Americans, there needs to be a mechanism for preventing abuses (the kind of abuses that JFK, LBJ and Nixon engaged in with wiretapping). Bush and Cheney want to spy without any mechanism at all for controlling them — not Congressional power, not the courts, not anything. That ain’t the American way.

And I’m sorry if the above sounds like more “condescention,” but I’m not condescending to the above poster as a Southerner (I don’t even know if he/she is a Southerner) but as someone who doesn’t know what’s going on here.

By M.A.

June 7, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this

I just want to post a few more quotes from digbysblog.blogspot.com , because I think Digby gets to the root of the problem a lot of us non-Southerners have with this issue:

“I’ve lived in both red and blue states for extended periods and frankly, never actually saw much of a difference; in my experience people are pretty much the same everywhere. But I respect the right to love your tribe and there are areas of the country in which regional identity is of paramount importance. It’s part of being human.

“It certainly will not be enough to nominate a conservative, born again southern Democrat. We did that. His name was Jimmy Carter. Here’s what they are still doing to him even 25 years later. We nominated a son of the “New South,” modern, moderate and pro-business. They impeached his a*.

“No, what must happen [for Democrats to win in the South] is that Democrats everywhere must place themselves avowedly with the most conservative red states in every way. They must openly reject their own tribal identity (whatever that may be) and become them. Nothing less will do.

“The red state cultural conservative insists that everyone, everywhere agrees with him. But we aren’t cultural conservatives! We can nominate nothing but born-again good old boys and girls for the rest of my life and that’s ok with me. But we cannot be all things to all people. I will never be ‘avowedly with’ red state cultural conservatism. It’s on the wrong side of history and always has been. I can’t become it. I don’t believe in it. If I did, I would be a Republican.”

By mtl

June 7, 2006 05:34 PM | Link to this

Where are the articles of impeachment on this?

How many reps signed it?

Get some reality.

The terrorist in route to blow up a building?

I really would like to know if he called out the country, and who called into this country, but that would be a request for info that happened before the warrant?

Liberty v. Security?

If Bush did not zealously seek out terrorists, the potential for mishap is far greater. Waht do you think would be the effects of our civil liberties if two or three more acts occurred here?

Beyond Bush, and he has about two and half-years left, the next president when faced with the same circumstance will proceed in the same manner.

By M.A.

June 7, 2006 05:40 PM | Link to this

MTL, for the last time, he doesn’t have to seek permission before getting a warrant. The law allows him to wiretap first and then get a warrant 72 hours later. If he thinks 72 hours isn’t long enough, he can ask Congress to change the law. He didn’t ask. He doesn’t want Congress or the Courts to have any power over when and how he can wiretap.

Look, the law Bush is breaking was implemented because Presidents like JFK, LBJ and Nixon were using wiretaps as a way of spying in secret on their political enemies. And when they or their officials were called on this, they claimed it was all in the name of fighting Communists (just as today it’s all about fighting terrorists). What Bush and Cheney want to do is bring back the days when Presidents like LBJ and Nixon could do whatever they wanted, spy on anyone, without anyone to stop them from abusing this power. Does that make you feel more “secure?”

By hewhoasks

June 7, 2006 05:48 PM | Link to this

MTL:

That “terrorist with a truckload of ammonium nitrate” and a cell phone argument doesn’t fly, in more than one way. First is that Bush is refusing to get required warrants in any instnaces, not rapid-response situations similar to what you postulate. Second is the fact that Bush has 72 hours AFTER a wiretap to seek the warrants.

Your argument is rather like saying that if a major fire hits Atlanta and the water delivery system breaks down it might be necessary and prudent to dynamite buildings in the path of the fire in order to stop the spread of the fire. That being the case, the mayor of Atlanta can go ahead and dynamite any building at any time. That’s obvious nonsense.

Congress passed a law that specifically covers the type of case you describe. Bush, although he is supposed to obey the laws, does not obey that one - nor many others.

The US is a nation of laws. That’s not just a slogan.

By

June 7, 2006 06:04 PM | Link to this

laws are sacrifices in liberty for the gain of security, there is no perfect balance and it will continue to ebb and flow. One side right another wrong? Only in degrees and very grey areas.

Please give me a list of ‘victims’ of Bush’s police state.

The media and the left have failed to provide one after five years.

If someone has been prosecuted through illegal means, let’s hear the case.

By

June 8, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Populist John Tester Scores Huge Win Against D.C. Dems and For the Rest of Us

If they can pull this off in Montana, we can do this in the south.

By guy smiley

June 8, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

The attitude of many of the posters demonstrates why the Democrats do poorly in national races in the south. Why should Southerners align themselves with people who think of them as ingorant racist barbarians?

If the national Democratic party wishes to do well in the South it needs to show Southern voters the same respect it would show voters anywhere else.

By M.A.

June 8, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

But, Guy Smiley, it goes both ways. Why should Northern/Eastern Democrats show respect for the South when Southern politicians, like Lott and Bush and DeLay and others — show no respect whatsoever for non-Southerners?

By mark

June 9, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

Do lefties have any idea that stating opinion as fact makes them sound stupid?

By billy

June 9, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

The south was solidly democratic until the black folks were given equal rights by democrats, then the ignorant, biased whites of the south jumped over to the republicans. That’s why the southeast is going along with the hate spewing republicans as represented by the radio broadcasters. Southerners need hate to keep going because they hate themselves for losing the civil war. That is the truth. Oh yeah, they are religious cause they don’t know no better.

By Fave

June 9, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Oh come on billy, you don’t really think fine southron Christyuns really go along with all that librul racial equality and equal opportunity crap? Puh-lease!

By The Canton Tiger

June 10, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

Scott Holbomb in a Democract that has an excelent chance of becoming Georgia next Secretary of State. He’s young, smart, articulate and smooth. An Army officer and Iraqi veteran. If your interested in talent and leadership, check him out.

By Kev

June 10, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

The LAST thing the Democrats want to do is “win” the south because if they they try to stoop to the levels of “southern Democrats” like Wallace, Fabus and Maddox, they will LOSE everywhere else! The Democrats do NOT need the south. The Democrats need states like Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, West VA and New Mexico- where they used to win and can win again IF they can avoid the word “guns”. But if they start joining the Repukes in bashing immigrants, bashing homosexuals and using thinly veiled bigotry, they can kiss my vote bye!

By Lee

June 11, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

Democrats / Republicans, not much difference between the two, IMHO. Both will put the welfare of their respective party ahead of what is good for America. In the past, I, like a lot of voters, would hold my nose and vote for the least offensive. Not anymore. The best thing we can hope for out of Washington is gridlock - you know, one party controlling Congress and the other controlling the Executive branch.

Several years ago, I swore that I would never vote for another Democrat. Now, I’m pretty much to the point where I will never vote for another Republican. I guess I’ll be supporting third party and independent candidates from here on out.