Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 August
2007 July
2006 May
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
Courage Campaign
Ethnic Press
Right Wing Watch
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| Democrat Can Win Presidency Without the South |
| 11.25.03 (11:02 am) [edit] |
[b]One suggested tactic for 2004 is to cede the region to Bush. But history argues against it.[/b]
Fearing that their next presidential nominee could bomb in Dixie, many Democrats are hinting that it might be smart for the party to virtually write off the Deep South and pursue victory elsewhere.
Officially, Democrats declare that they will compete with President Bush everywhere in the nation. But, privately, there is serious concern that their nominee will lose every state of the Old Confederacy, with the possible exception of Florida - a scenario that seems especially likely if they choose Howard Dean, the antiwar Vermont Yankee who, as governor, signed a bill legalizing gay civil unions.
A Dixie strategy has always seemed essential; no Democrat has ever been elected president without winning at least a few Southern states. But, faced with Bush's strong popularity in that GOP-trending region, Democratic operatives seem willing to entertain a strategy that would defy history: assembling an Electoral College majority from states in the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest and on the West Coast. After all, their 2000 nominee, Al Gore, almost pulled it off.
Many Democrats seem tempted by the idea. On a radio show last week, Democratic candidate John Kerry said that, yes, it was important to compete in the South, but he pointed out that Gore, who was shut out in Dixie, still would have won his race if tiny New Hampshire had not backed Bush - the sole state in the Northeast to do so. Dean's campaign manager has made the same argument.
The national party, meanwhile, has drawn up a list of 17 to 21 "battleground states" for the 2004 election, and virtually none are in Dixie, with the most notable exception of Florida. And a well-financed Democratic voter-mobilization group, America Coming Together, is targeting 17 states, including Pennsylvania - yet only two, Florida and Arkansas, are located below the Mason-Dixon Line.
Indeed, targeting is now in vogue. Democratic strategist Tom Lindenfeld, who believes in theory that the nominee should compete everywhere, nevertheless said: "It's not clear that if we take our limited resources and spread them everywhere, that it's a wise use of those resources." Top priority, he said, "should go to the states that Bush won narrowly last time [by 5 percent or less]. That's the basis for our future."
And that would virtually eliminate the South. With the exception of Florida and Tennessee (Gore's home state), the remaining nine states of the Old Confederacy backed Bush in 2000 by margins ranging from 6 to 21 points. Southern observers expect a repeat next year; North Carolina political analyst Ted Arrington said: "I'd tell the Democrats: 'Forget it, boys. Write off the South this time. Throw out the history books.' "
History shows that Democrats have never won without some Southern success; that Bill Clinton won four Old Confederacy states in 1992 and 1996; that Jimmy Carter virtually swept the region in 1976; that, by contrast, Gore, Michael Dukakis (1988) and Walter Mondale (1984) won nothing; and that a non-Southern Democrat has not won the White House since John F. Kennedy (1960).
Respecting this history, many Democrats remain adamant that the region should not be ceded to the GOP. Dumping Dixie means that their presidential nominee would have to win 70 percent of the electoral votes everywhere else - including all the states that Gore barely won: Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin. Moreover, the Old Confederacy in 2004 will have more clout than ever; thanks to population growth, those states will command 153 electoral votes, six more than in 2000.
Mississippi Democratic chairman Rickey Coles said: "Ignoring the South is no way to build a national party. That just allows the party to wither on the vine. All this 'targeting,' all this whimpering and whining about 'limited resources,' obscures the fact that even if the nominee wins the presidency without the South, he wouldn't be a true national leader with a national constituency."
Ruy Teixeira, a liberal Democratic expert on voting trends, understands the temptation to write off Dixie - "It's common sense, you go hunt where the ducks are" - but he said that such a "wholesale abandonment" would send a bad message about the party.
"It would imply that we see all Southerners as a culturally alien mass that we don't know how to talk to," he said. "And that would further skew our image, identifying us even more with upscale social liberalism - which is a tendency that we already have."
South Carolina Democratic activist Phil Noble said: "There's a lot of thinking inside the [Washington] Beltway about writing us off, but that's a bad perspective. Sure, if the election was held today, Dean wouldn't win in the South. But the South has an independent, rebellious streak, and so does Dean. He could appeal to that."
Noble said that Democrats could win Southern states by demonstrating that whites and blacks with modest incomes share the same economic concerns.
He said: "We have a lot of folks without health insurance, and their children are suffering. Dean's hands-on experience with health care could have a lot of appeal."
Some Democrats also argue that Bush's standing as a war leader could suffer next year, even in the pro-military South, if the families of soldiers serving abroad become seriously restive about Iraq.
However, out in cyberspace, where front-runner Dean's fans talk politics, the Southern strategy is garnering some bad reviews. On a Web site called Independents for Dean, "Doug" makes the case for ceding Dixie to Bush: "Let NASCAR bumpkins have their W. They are not voting for any Dem anyway."
And, the optimists notwithstanding, Dean may indeed face hurdles in the South, if he is the nominee. His civil union law will not play well among cultural conservatives; his antiwar stance and faint praise for the coup against Saddam Hussein ("I suppose that's a good thing") may ring hollow in the nation's most hawkish region; his proposed repeal of Bush's tax cuts may not sway Southern whites, who generally like the GOP's low-tax philosophy; and his call last Monday for business "re-regulation" clashes with the free enterprise credo.
Worse yet, his professed desire to be the candidate "for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" has alienated many Southern whites. Some thought that Dean's Oct. 31 remark tagged them all as racist hicks; and those who respect the Confederate heritage were incensed when Dean later apologized, calling the flag "a painful symbol of racism and slavery." As flag supporter Jim Dean (no relation), an estate planner in suburban Atlanta, remarked the other day: "Nobody bought the Dean ploy."
Merle Black, a Georgia political analyst, said: "[Howard] Dean was trying to say that lower-class Southern whites and blacks should be voting together on economic issues, but, by throwing the Confederate flag into it, he showed his lack of touch for Southern politics. It made him look culturally distant from the region."
Black noted that, increasingly, the typical Southern voter is a young married suburbanite who came of age during the Ronald Reagan era, when conservative Republicans made major inroads in the South; these voters are now fueling the GOP's rise to majority status. Last year alone, three Southern Democratic governors and a Southern Democratic senator were ousted, and four Democratic senatorial candidates lost races for open seats.
For these reasons, he said, "the Democrats, especially with Dean topping the ticket, should see the Northern-Midwestern-West strategy as the way to go. Focus more on states like Ohio," where Bush won last time by only 4 points.
Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist, said it would be wrong to sour on Dixie; however, "you have to follow the numbers and be pragmatic." She is eyeing the Southwest - notably, Nevada (where Bush won by 3 points), and Arizona (Bush by 6). Those states, along with New Mexico, are increasingly home to pro-Democratic Latinos and California expatriates.
Even some Republican strategists are warning colleagues that the Democrats could skip the entire South and still win. Pollster Hans Kaiser said the other day: "They can't win Southern states against a sitting Republican president - but they don't have to. They can do it elsewhere."
And as he wrote in a recent memo about the front-runner's non-Dixie prospects: "We are whistling past the graveyard if we think Howard Dean will be a pushover."
By Dick Polman
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer
11/23/03
© Philadelphia Inquirer
|
|
7 Comments
|
| |
| Bush, Republicans Create False Crisis |
| 11.19.03 (11:45 pm) [edit] |
[b]N[/b]ow that the dust has settled after the 40-hour talk marathon contrived by the republican leadership in the senate, we can take a countered look at the Bush judicial nominee situation, free from spin.
Since there is no clear way to avert the spin, we shall simply take a closer look or just debunk conservatives claims altogether.
[b]As a result of Democratic opposition to federal judicial nominees, there is a federal judical vacancy crisis.[/b]
The current vacancy rate on the court is 5%. This is the lowest vacancy rate in 13 years. To date, 168 of President Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed, the same pace that prevailed during the first three years of the Clinton administration.
With Democrats lacking any majorities in Washington, all they have is the ultimate tool of the filibuster. And they haven't used it much at all. Apparently, filibusters are being used for only a handful of the most extreme, ultra-conservative nominees. Not all nominees, as have been exagerated by the gentlemen on the Right.
[b]The use of the filibuster is unprecedented for judicial nominees.[/b]
But filibusters have been used by both parties in judicial nominations for decades. They are an essential safety valve in our system of checks and balances. Senator Frist (R-TN) voted to continue a filibuster on a judicial nominee as recently as 2000 and Senator Hatch (R-UT) defended the use of the filibuster in the 1990's.
[b]Senators using the filibuster are obstructionists.[/b]
Well said, but they are within the bounds of the constitution and are performing their duties, albeit, through enormous pressure because G.W. wants to make this an election issue.
Now, let us examine the filibustered jurists that seemingly lie at the center of this entire debate.
Janice Rogers Brown is the lone African American member of the oddly conservative California Supreme Court. From Los Angeles Superior Court, we have Carolyn Kuhl, a Federalist Society member who once worked in the Reagan Justice Department. Can't forget, Priscilla Owen, another Federalist Society member currently serving on the Texas Supreme Court.
[b]If you oppose Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen or Carolyn Kuhl, you're anti-woman.[/b]
Women's groups across the nation oppose these nominees because of their stands against reproductive choice and civil rights for minorities, women, and all Americans. A vast majority of Bush's female nominees have been confirmed. It appears that the confirmations of these nominees are being opposed because of their public records.
[b]If you oppose Janice Rogers Brown, you're racist. [/b]
The opposition to Justice Brown is based solely on her record, and has nothing to do with race. Hundreds of state, local and national groups, including many major African American organizations, oppose her confirmation. In fact, she was rated 'unqualified' by the California State Bar Association during her nomination process to the state Supreme Court. Despite the republican race card, the vast majority of Bush's African-American nominees have been confirmed.
Not to say the least of Miguel Estrada, a Honduran born immigrant who graduated from Harvard and went on to serve in the office of Solicitor General during the Clinton adminstration.
[b]Individuals who opposed Miguel Estrada are anti-Latino. [/b]
Hundreds of individuals and organizations, including several major Latino organizations, opposed Estrada based on what was known of his record, and his refusal to supply the Judiciary Committee with answers to questions and documents.
How about Charles Pickering Sr., a religious Mississippi District Court Judge with a segregationist background and friend of sentimental Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS). There is also the deeply religious Alabama Attorney General, William Pryor.
[b]If you oppose Charles Pickering or William Pryor, you're anti-Christian. [/b]
But, men and women of deep faith oppose the nominations of Pickering and Pryor on the basis of their public records. Several Catholic senators voted against the nomination of Pryor, who is also Catholic, and they weathered unfair charges of 'anti-Catholic bias.' This debate should be about the nominee's qualifications and public record, not his or her faith.
Even with the degrading use of the race card, the religious card and the anti-feminist attempt, White House rubber stampers still could gain no traction with the American public. So they try to rile up their base with all they got left.
[b]Democratic Senators have applied an anti-abortion litmus test to Bush nominees.[/b]
Numerous Bush nominees who personally oppose abortion have been confirmed. Opposition to this small number of ultra-conservative nominees is based on their records and views on a wide range of civil and constitutional rights, including reproductive freedom.
On the other hand, the Bush administration has not identified a single pro-choice judicial nominee. Intersting choice for a president who was (s)elected by losing the popular vote, erroneous voter purging in Florida and conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.
---Proletariat
|
|
3 Comments
|
| |
| Gov. Schwarzenegger Increases CA Deficit by $4 Billion |
| 11.18.03 (10:17 am) [edit] |
Within one hour of the hollywood style inaguration of now California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the new man in charge signed an executive order repealing the vehicle registration increase signed into law by former Gov. Davis earlier this year.
The move will effectively cost county and local governments $4 Billion. Recalled Governor, Gray Davis signed the automatic increase into law so that local public safety agencies would not lose much needed funding in an era of heightened security due to past and potential terrorist acts.
The City of Los Angeles, stand to lose nearly $400 million from their budget. The Los Angeles Police Department is currently 3,000 officers short of what is needed to effectively fight crime in the nation's second largest city. Now they must deal with laying off officers to cover a $230 million gap in its budget.
Thanks Arnold. Great move. Can't wait to you repeal the driver's liscense for undocumented workers law so that I can be run over by a hit-and-run driver. There will be no police to hunt the culprit down and limited medical care services available to provide emergency treatment.
Oh, by the way, now the budget deficit will increase another $4 Billion dollars. And you plan to pay for this with a $20 Billion dollar bond?
[b]Taking on debt to pay off debt.[/b]
Or in other words, using your credit card at a higher interest rate, to pay off your car loan. At the end of the day the people will end up paying more money. Can someone say Recall.
-Proletariat
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| U.S. Senator says Black Nominee will be Lynched |
| 11.15.03 (7:39 am) [edit] |
Peoples’ Army Alert
[b]Health Warning:[/b] Old white men should reframe from 40-hour talk marathons. It may cause insensitivity, delirium and a distortion of history.
This warning comes at the heels of Senator Zell Miller’s (GA) comments on the senate floor during the republican led 40-hour judicial gabfest.
Miller, a democrat, claimed that federal district
appellate court nominee Janice Rogers Brown is lynched
because she is African American. Here’s the actual
quote, "this African-American woman will not be given
an up-or-down vote, because the Democrats in this
chamber refuse to stand and let her do it, they're
standing in the doorway, and they've got a sign:
conservative African-American women need not apply.
And if you have the temerity to do so, your reputation
will be shattered and your dignity will be shredded.
[b]Gal, you will be lynched[/b]."
It is a sad day for America when a long serving U.S. Senator does not understand the emotional and
psychological effects that the history of lynching
have on people of color in this nation. If you are
challenged in this understanding, just think of the
Jewish Holocaust. People need to remind Sen. Miller
that lynchings are nothing like the political gang
banging in Washington, they are more like the gas chambers in Nazi Germany.
The filibustering of judicial nominees are the continum
of a long-standing political ideological battle. A difference of opinion about how judges should rule on prevailing issues of worker’s rights, reproductive choice, gay rights, civil rights and the like.
Lynching was painfully about fear, intimidation, mutilation, public display and humiliation.
Someone get Sen. Miller a history book. Better yet,
someone ask him to join Sen. Trent Lott (MS) as he
visits the King Center in Atlanta. The center
dedicated to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,
houses one of the least known national treasures, an
exhibit called "Without Sanctuary."
"Without Sanctuary" is a horrifying display of
historical records of the very legal practice of
lynching in the United States, which occurred as late
as the 1960s. Blacks in the south and Chinese victims
in the west were found hanging from trees while white
families watched with enjoyment and ate popcorn. Its
true, go to the King Center and you can view the
photographs with your own eyes.
California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown
may be deserving and fit to serve the post G.W.
nominated her to. And maybe the Democrats are being
unfair by filibustering, an act that prevents her an
up or down vote on the full senate floor. She clearly
would receive the 51 votes needed for confirmation.
So Brown is definitely caught in the political cross
hairs, but there is no logical reasoning to compare
her to a burnt and mutilated Black body hanging from a
tree limb above a raucous crowd.
In recent weeks, Sen. Miller has rebuked democrats and
presidential candidate Howard Dean in particular for
misperceiving southern whites. Miller feels that
democrats views southerners as if their regional home is still the old Jim Crow South.
In his new book, [i]A National Party No More[/i], Miller explains that this view of the south has alienated white southerners from the Democratic Party and encourages them to vote republican. He could be right, but statements comparing a filibuster of an African American judicial nominee to a lynching will keep northerners and outsiders believing that the South hadn’t changed at all.
-Proletariat
|
|
5 Comments
|
| |
| Race, Ethnicity Will No Longer Be A Factor In Amerika... |
| 11.13.03 (11:03 pm) [edit] |
Anti-affirmative action activist Ward Connerly recently tried to erase race by constitutional amendment. Connerly's ballot measure was soundly defeated in the shadows of California's historic gubernatorial recall election.
Nevertheless, the polarizing figure managed to open America's age-old debate about race. Connerly argues that the civil rights movement was some 40 years ago and most Americans have moved beyond race.
Fortunately, voters in the most ethnically diverse state in the union disagreed and decided to continue collecting racial statistics that measure academic achievement, family income, home ownership and all the rest.
The Proletariat hates to kick a dog while he's down, but the people usually find no trouble keeping on Connerly's case.
I recently stumbled across musing commentary from trusted authority and civil rights attorney Connie Rice and thought I should share it with you. And no, not G.W.s Condi Rice. This should have been the campaign slogans for the good people of the golden state who stood up to self-hating Connerly
[b]We'll know that race no longer matters...[/b]
10. When Shoshanna Johnson gets the same book and movie deal enjoyed by Jessica Lynch.
9. When white people stop exclaiming how articulate I am.
8. When the perjury of a white thief can no longer send 15 percent of a town's black residents to prison for a total of 400 years on false drug charges (Like in Tulia, Texas.)
7. When Steven Glass' serial fabrications prompt questions about white male qualifications the way Jayson Blair's did about black journalists' qualifications.
6. When white ex-cons no longer get more job call-backs than crime-free blacks with the same resumes.
5. When black sports ignoramuses get fired for saying the same stupid stuff that white sports ignoramuses get fired for.
4. When the word "genocide" gets dropped from Webster's.
3. When black Court of Appeals judges in suits no longer get mistaken for bellhops.
2. When Tim McVeigh look-alikes -- tall angry-looking white guys with buzz cuts -- get profiled and rounded up like black suspects.
1. When the projected date for full housing integration between blacks and whites ceases to be more than 100 years from now.
[b]And finally... when statistics like this aren't measurable because the disparities are gone. [/b]
---Proletariat
|
|
2 Comments
|
| |
| Television Is WAR on Idle Minds |
| 11.11.03 (10:14 pm) [edit] |
Beware; the government uses television to keep calm, distract, scare, distort reality and keep us in check. The visual weapon takes our focus off of our children. We don't watch them and we don't watch what they view on the set.
We believe anything said on television[b]..."Its true, I saw it on TV."[/b]
Television reinforces middle-class amerikan behavior as correct and proper behavior which continues to confuse us and ruin our real relationships with self, friends, family, community and the globe. Television programs are fantasy (reality tv included), no one lives like that, so to model yourself after viction is to be a fool!
Stop using TV as your only source of information, its poison.
[u]Soap Operas:[/u] women watch these closer than their own relationships and learn that men like sit-com characters make better lovers and providers, plus it confirms the average Joe is not good enough. Remember, Soap Operas were created to sell household products, that's it.
[u]Cop Shows:[/u] allow us to think watch good cops fight bad people of color and take them to jail where they belong. They never show the false arrest, trumped up charges or excessive abuse.
[u]Judge Shows:[/u] encourages us to view the courts as friendly systems and we learn to trust that "judges" make the right decisions based on facts. Nevermind the fact that the ruling of many judges are frequently overturned in appealete court. That's to say nothing of the dozens of death row inmates that were later exonerated.
[u]Music Videos:[/u] The videos the children love are almost X-rated, exposing young people to pimping, stripping, hustling and on occasion, the lifestyles of the rich and famous. In rare instances, they view the never serious, always joking-clowning-playful-s afe Black man.
[u]News:[/u] gives no information that is positive, global or local. It programs fear in to the masses making elders afraid of their own grandchildren and neighborhoods. Nowadays it seems they are more interested in reporting on Benifer and other celebrity mishaps.
[u]Talk Shows:[/u] exploitive, all gays are flamers propaganda. Although it may be television's truest form (i.e., interacial dating, poor whites, racists, transgenedered, etc.) its the best promoter of the worst of mankind. Only here can we learn thatstripping is great as long as your in school and out of control children setting the worst example for all those children who [i]study[/i] TV to learn how to act.
[u]Sit-coms:[/u] always seems to depict Latino or Black males as players, thugs, flamers, cross-dressers, scared of things, trying to get sex, insulting to women and will lie to get out of trouble. Latina and Black women are usually depicted as angry, contolling, emasculating, with negative attitudes, romatically over aggressive, but one dimensional. Show after show, they're dressed in tight outfits and wear ugly fake-hair pieces to look like the white women who write the scripts they perform. Whites are all over television. The women are ultra skinny, attractive and smarter than the men. Sometimes they are mothers whom seem to preoccupied arguing with their clumsy, lazy husbands to care for the children.
This penning is not dedicated to the elimination of the television set. This is just a guide or talking points that express the power of the idiot tube. There are very meaningful, intelligent programs that appear on TV. Sadly, they are few and far between.
The people must stand up to the corporate-interest FCC and demand that congress restore regulations that will honor qualitative programming. Market competition will thrive through balance and I beleive the reverse is true as well. Media conglomeration will not benefit the public or the companies in the long run.
For now, idle minds are in the hands of FCC chairman Michael Powell and the corporate interests.
-Proletariat
|
|
5 Comments
|
| |
|
|
