Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24444 Sep 12, 2013
Apparently you don't know what "cont" means, you just repeated the "cont" portion of my post - don't see the point, but... whatever.
And I see you are completely missing the point that what many of those former Southern Democrats were even more concerned with were the economy and defense. But if you really want to "go round" again, fine.
THE “SOUTHERN STRATEGY” DEBUNKED AGAIN
Liberals will never tire of calling conservatives racist, because it’s always a show-stopper, a way of cutting off further debate on any issue where a liberal is likely to lose. So don’t expect it to go away any time soon. (Though why Republicans aren’t better at “punching back twice as hard,” e.g., by pointing out the permanent racist legacy of the Democratic Party, noting the vote tally for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc., is beyond me. Another example of Republican rhetorical incompetence.)
Gerard Alexander began a thorough debunking of this theme in the Claremont Review of Books several years ago (“The Myth of the Racist Republicans“), and Sean Trende continues the job with a fine column today on RealClearPolitics,“Southern Whites’ Shift to GOP Predates the ’60s.” It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s a few highlights:
In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South”...
But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson’s 52 percent. He carried most of the “peripheral South”— Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida — and made inroads in the “Deep South,” almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.
Even in what we might call the “Deepest South”— Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi — Eisenhower kept Stevenson under 70 percent, which might not seem like much until you realize that Tom Dewey got 18 percent in Georgia against FDR in 1944, and that this had been an improvement over Herbert Hoover’s 8 percent in 1932.
In 1956, Eisenhower became the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a plurality of the vote in the South, 49.8 percent to 48.9 percent. He once again carried the peripheral South, but also took Louisiana with 53 percent of the vote. He won nearly 40 percent of the vote in Alabama. This is all the more jarring when you realize that the Brown v. Board decision was handed down in the interim, that the administration had appointed the chief justice who wrote the decision, and that the administration had opposed the school board.
Nor can we simply write this off to Eisenhower’s celebrity. The GOP was slowly improving its showings at the congressional level as well. It won a special election to a House seat in west Texas in 1950, and began winning urban congressional districts in Texas, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia with regularity beginning in 1952.
It’s worth going back and re-reading Alexander’s dissection of the academic scholarship on this subject, and especially the conclusion:
The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers’.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24445 Sep 12, 2013
That last paragraph bears repeating

"The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers’."
Now

Phoenix, AZ

#24449 Sep 12, 2013
Southern strategy by the libroids = racism.

Topix strategy by the libroids = racism.

Like Dad, like Son.

Stupid is an inherited trait, comes from demo koolaid.
example

Dawsonville, GA

#24450 Sep 12, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>The video was made by a cop. The video is one of the most horrible things I have ever watched in my life. These cops beat this kid all night, while he begged for his life. The young man is in prison now.
There are millions of people all over the world who "think they are good". You are a great example.
OMTE

Edison, GA

#24452 Sep 12, 2013
example wrote:
<quoted text>
There are millions of people all over the world who "think they are good". You are a great example.
You think you're "good" at coming up with little names, to go with your stupid little posts. But I think most just think you're stupid. I think you should call yourself "fa$$ot general". LoL. Have you built your army yet?:)
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#24453 Sep 12, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
And I see you are completely missing the point that what many of those former Southern Democrats were even more concerned with were the economy and defense. But if you really want to "go round" again, fine.

Gerard Alexander began a thorough debunking of this theme in the Claremont Review of Books several years ago (“The Myth of the Racist Republicans“), and Sean Trende continues the job with a fine column today on RealClearPolitics,“Southern Whites’ Shift to GOP Predates the ’60s.” 

The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers’.
Geez, that's a toughie, who should we believe the current crop of conservative revisionists or the guy that was actually doin' the work.

As Atwater says, after 1968 the blatant approach wasn't working and the coded message had to be employed, cause we all know who's going to get hit the worst when you cut assistance programs (until you look at the actual stats). So moving to code and deeper abstractions gives you what, plausible deniability, tra-la tra-la.

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni__er, ni__er, ni__er." By 1968 you can't say "ni__er" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni__er, ni__er."

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24454 Sep 12, 2013
There goes that reading comprehension thing again.

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'M NOT SAYING THAT. But I'm saying that if it is getting THAT abstract, and THAT coded, THAT WE ARE DOING AWAY WITH THE RACIAL PROBLEM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ." emphasis mine

And I see you completely ignored the factual evidence presented in the article 6 posts up: The Southern Strategy Debunked Again

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24455 Sep 12, 2013
And just for grins:

Charlie Rangel: Obama Cabinet Diversity 'Embarrassing As Hell'
The Huffington Post | By Luke Johnson

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), the second-longest serving African-American congressman in the House, slammed the lack of diversity in President Barack Obama's second-term cabinet Thursday.

"It's as embarrassing as hell," Rangel said on MSNBC's "Jansing & Co." of Obama's top picks. "We've been through all of this with Mitt Romney. And we were very hard on Mitt Romney with the women binder and a variety of things."

"I kinda think there's no excuse when it's the second term. If it's the first term, you could see people got to know who is around and qualified in order to get this job, number one," he continued.

"I had thought that it could be the Harvard problem where people just know each other, trust each other. And women and minorities don't get a chance to rub elbows and their reputations and experience is not known ... so in the second term, these people should be just as experienced as anybody, any other American."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/char...
does anyone care

Alpharetta, GA

#24456 Sep 12, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>LoL. Do you know who I am?
Does anyone care who you are weed head con?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24457 Sep 12, 2013
Frankly, I don't like the numbers game when it comes to who is in what position, like most conservatives I know, we actually are more concerned with the content of a person's character than we are the color of their skin. It is the Left obsessed with race. But here is another from the Left taking Obama to task.

A president for everyone, except Black people

'As President Barack Obama begins his second term, there is something noticeably different about his new cabinet - the absence of African-American leaders and advisors.
The Congressional Black Caucus chair, Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio recently sent the president a letter stating,“You have publicly expressed your commitment to retaining diversity within your cabinet. However, the people you have chosen to appoint in this new term have hardly been reflective of this country’s diversity.”
When one compares President Obama to his predecessors, the decrease in African-American appointments is astounding."
....
For me, the absence of African-Americans in a second term is not only disrespectful to the Black community—who voted 96 percent for President Obama in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012, but also underscores a larger problem of economic and job opportunities for the Black community.
Indeed, if we objectively look at Obama’s presidency, African-Americans are in a worse position than they were before he became president. At the end of January 2009, unemployment for African-Americans was 12.7 percent. Four years later, the situation is worse, and unemployment is higher at 13.8 percent.'

http://www.phillytrib.com/newsarticles/item/8...
OMTE

Edison, GA

#24458 Sep 12, 2013
does anyone care wrote:
<quoted text>
Does anyone care who you are weed head con?
You must, being I wasn't talking to you, pig.:)
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#24459 Sep 12, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
There goes that reading comprehension thing again.
"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'M NOT SAYING THAT. But I'm saying that if it is getting THAT abstract, and THAT coded, THAT WE ARE DOING AWAY WITH THE RACIAL PROBLEM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ." emphasis mine
And I see you completely ignored the factual evidence presented in the article 6 posts up: The Southern Strategy Debunked Again
Sure, they're doing away with the racial thing by moving to coded abstractions, it's the ol' subaural dog whistle.

And your "factual evidence" looks a lot like biased analysis that would carry just a bit more weight if wasn't coming from declared conservatives.
Scott

Homer, GA

#24460 Sep 12, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>You must, being I wasn't talking to you, pig.:)
Sorry OMTE, I forgot to reply to your original question. I am not sure who you are but....I think you might be Juan Valdez. If you remember, he was the guy who led around his burro, "Conchita" loaded down with coffee beans and pitched Folgers Coffee. While he fooled most people, I always thought that at least one of the coffee bags was filled with Columbian "Gold".

If you are not Juan Valdez, then, I apologize.
Scott

Homer, GA

#24461 Sep 12, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that is funny. That woman was such an embarrassment in office.
You are right. She is an embarrassment. But, at least, she now resides in Florida and is busy posting her rants on Topix.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24462 Sep 12, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, they're doing away with the racial thing by moving to coded abstractions, it's the ol' subaural dog whistle.
And your "factual evidence" looks a lot like biased analysis that would carry just a bit more weight if wasn't coming from declared conservatives.
Just keep showing that reading comprehension problem, I'm moving on.

And now you have gone to one of your favored (weak and pathetic, but favored) tactics , when the facts slam you in the face - move on to discrediting the source, there is just one problem -regardless of the source, you can't change the facts of elections and percentages. They aren't open to bias, they just are what they are. I'm bored with this. It's just the same old charge of racism the Left throws when all else fails. I strongly suggest you drop it and move on to something substantive. Yeah, right.
The wb

Dawsonville, GA

#24463 Sep 12, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
You should have stopped at "Nice response."
Then you would have created the impression,(albeit false), of possessing some degree of education and relevant information.
But, alas,'twas not to be.
Opinions vary. Let me repeat. It's mind over matter. I don't mind because your opinion doesn't matter.

Informed Opinion

Dawsonville, GA

#24464 Sep 12, 2013
Informed Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
We're Left Wingers.
We hate Bush. We have no valid or honest reason other than his approval ratings got too high and comrade Carville said we had to start a smear campaign to bring it down.
and
We love Obama because he threatened to drop a few bombs somewhere. he's been an international embarrassment, has no foreign policy except to suck up to the moslem brotherhood, his domestic policy is just the kind of fascism hidden in the socialist principle we so very love. He lies, can't talk coherently without a teleprompter, is so self absorbed that nothing matters but how he looks, but hey nobody's perfect. We love Obama for no good reason whatsoever.
And to think some people believe that makes us Wackos.
That's what I meant
The wb

Dawsonville, GA

#24465 Sep 12, 2013
Oh my wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah,
this whole myth needs a thorough debunking,
the very idea is so repellent...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
Atwater on the Southern Strategy
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of the interview was printed in Lamis's book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005, edition of the New York Times. On November 13, 2012, The Nation magazine released what it claimed to be audio of the full interview.[7] James Carter IV, grandson of former president Jimmy Carter, had asked and been granted access to these tapes by the widow of the recently deceased interviewer, Mr. Lamis. Atwater talked about the Republican Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni__er, ni__er, ni__er." By 1968 you can't say "ni__er" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni__er, ni__er."[8][9]
you're seeing an entire platoon of doctors, aren't you?
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#24467 Sep 12, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
Just keep showing that reading comprehension problem, I'm moving on.
And now you have gone to one of your favored (weak and pathetic, but favored) tactics , when the facts slam you in the face - move on to discrediting the source, there is just one problem -regardless of the source, you can't change the facts of elections and percentages. They aren't open to bias, they just are what they are. I'm bored with this. It's just the same old charge of racism the Left throws when all else fails. I strongly suggest you drop it and move on to something substantive. Yeah, right.
And to think that it all started when you posted that straw man piece from the Hollywood Reporter, no wonder you want to drop it.

I wonder where the Left ever comes up with these misconceptions since "you can't change the facts of elections and percentages".

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law
Sunday, Nov. 25, 2012 - Palm Beach Post

A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.

Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.

...“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post.“It’s done for one reason and one reason only.…‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said.“It’s all a marketing ploy.”

...In 2008 Democrats, especially African-Americans, turned out in unprecedented numbers for President Barack Obama, many of them casting ballots during 14 early voting days. In Palm Beach County, 61.2 percent of all early voting ballots were cast by Democrats that year, compared with 18.7 percent by Republicans.
OMTE

Edison, GA

#24468 Sep 12, 2013
Obama is hurting the ones that love him the most, the worse.:(
http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/12/the-dam...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cartersville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dead fish Dellinger pond 1 hr Real 3
Tosha Herron Missing (Oct '16) 4 hr Anon 79
Heather Mcdonald Investigation Interest 8 hr sick of this BS 75
how does daily-tribune news pay its drivers Sat Free 8
Happy Ester Apr 21 Esters Eggs 10
bartow county code enforcement (Jul '13) Apr 20 TomTom gay gay 37
a private p.m. to animal lovers Apr 20 omni creaturae 1

Cartersville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Cartersville Mortgages