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

Blairsville, GA

#24438 Sep 12, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
The ongoing myth of the Southern Strategy.
There are any numbers of articles discussing and debunking this claim...
..........
Considering the repellent nature of both quotes, I looked them both up in an effort to debunk them before posting them and could find nothing claiming they were fraudulent.
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]

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24439 Sep 12, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody cares what the police do to all those mean, violent, lady, American Citizen Criminals. Huh? Why is everyone so eager to overlook the crimes of illegal aliens, and there employers. They are the ones destroying this country, along with Obama. Not the fragile lady, you care nothing for, in the video.
I think you know better than to claim I overlook the crimes of illegal aliens in this country and I think the employers should be fined heavily.
But I have absolutely no sympathy for drunk drivers - they kill too many innocent people and, by the percentages, they have a higher survival rate than their victims. She was being questioned because she had crashed, hadn't she - it is just fortunate no one was hurt - probably because she was driving at 4:00 am.

She missed a turn and crashed into a light pole that then required loose electrical wires to be taken care of as they were a fire and electrical hazard. Her car then proceeded across the lawn and into the bedroom of a house - fortunately the owners were not home and asleep in that very bedroom. She had three teenagers under the age of 18 in her car. Do you really expect me to have sympathy for someone who put that many people at risk through her own actions? Nope, not me.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24440 Sep 12, 2013
OMTE wrote:
<quoted text>You're crazy.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#24441 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
....
I don't have time to go into this in depth right now, but here's a quick rebuttal of the the same quote used.

Martin Bashir Broadcasts Misleading Edit Of Lee Atwater Quote To Portray GOP As Racist
by Noah Rothman | 9:36 pm, June 5th, 2013

This isolated remark from a more than 40 minute conversation clearly lacks important context:

Atwater began the interview by asserting that race and party were the dominant issues in the South prior to the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Following that, Southern voters became focused on the economy and national defense — in a sense, setting a trend for the nation because (with the exception of the Vietnam War) much of the Northeast, Midwest and West were still focused on local issues like agricultural and industrial policy in the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections.

The South in 1964 was considered reactionary, Neanderthalic, and so forth because we weren’t mainstream on not only on the race thing but on economic issues and national defense and all. We were considered, you know, ultraconservative and everything.
What happens is a guy like Reagan who campaigns in 1980 on a 1964 Goldwater platform, minus the boo-boos and obviously the Voting Rights Act and [Tennessee Valley Authority] and all that bullshit. But, if you look at the economics and the national defense, what happened is the South went from being behind the times to being mainstream.
The Reagans did not have to do a Southern strategy for two reasons: number one, race was not a dominant issue, and, number two, the mainstream issues in this campaign had been quote “southern issues” since way back in the ‘60s
“So, Reagan goes out and campaigns on economics and national defense. The whole campaign was devoid of any kind of racism. Any kind of reference,” Atwater continued.

He went on to chide white Southerners for their lack of knowledge of the true impact of the Voting Rights Act on American voting patterns.“There’s just no interest and no intensity on that thing among white voters,” Atwater said with an audible hint of derision.

Atwater goes on to say that the “Southern strategy,” as it was understood at the time, was really a play for white blue-collar voters. Those voters went for John Kennedy in 1960 and Barry Goldwater in 1964, but they went for George Wallace in 1968 – a candidate who also won urban white voters in the North’s declining industrial bases as well as the rural south by appealing to notions of alienation.

After supporting Richard Nixon‘s reelection bid in 1972, those blue-collar voters flipped and cast their ballots for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Atwater stresses that blue-collar voters have always been attracted to “the most conservative guy on fiscal matters” or “the toughest son of a bitch on national defense and foreign policy.” Regional pride issues also attracted low-education white voters, Atwater said with yet another note of disdain.

He goes on to note that the VRA would have been a major issue in the South in 1968, but, by 1980, Reagan did not have to run a regional campaign. His national themes of a strong defense and a renewed focus on fiscal conservatism carried the South as it did the Midwest and the West.

At this point, Lamis interrupts Atwater. Lamis notes that the fiscal debates of the 1980 campaign – reforming welfare and the food stamp program, for example – have an undeniable racial element to them. Atwater answers his question “as a statistician.”

(cont)
Oh my

Blairsville, GA

#24443 Sep 12, 2013
Aggie23 wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...
I don't have time to go into this in depth right now, but here's a quick rebuttal of the the same quote used.

Martin Bashir Broadcasts Misleading Edit Of Lee Atwater Quote To Portray GOP As Racist
by Noah Rothman | 9:36 pm, June 5th, 2013
Here's the link to the article you are quoting, and here is the remainder of the article that follows the "omitted" portion of the interview (not shown at the end of your post)...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-bashir-broa...
...A report by The Nation’s Rick Perlstein, in which the audio of the interview is published, omits the portion in bold – a crucial bit of context. Bashir’s segment also omitted this exculpatory aside.

What Atwater is saying in the omitted portion of this interview is that, by 1980, overt appeals to racism had lost their efficacy. In the midst of a clinical evaluation of campaign strategy, Atwater digresses to contend that racism both exists and is no longer an effective tool for campaigners.

At the very least, an honest appraisal of what Atwater is saying is that a racial strategy is not a prudent course for campaigners in the South. And this was 30 years ago. To misquote him in order to attest that he was referring to circumstances relevant today is misleading at best.
==========
Here's the link to my post...
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/blairsville-g...

which clearly contains the "omitted" portion of Atwater's repsonse.

Once again you failed to debunk the Southern Strategy, and instead have supported my original post that after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Southern Democrats who favored segregation were not voting Democratic (at least in national elections), witness the support for George Wallace in 1968. As Atwater clearly attests, after 1968 the message became more abstract (cpded) to contend with a shifting demographic.

Would you like to go around again.

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

Dahlonega, 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

Moultrie, 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

Moultrie, 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

Maysville, 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

Maysville, 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.

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
Review: C And N Auto Sales 1 hr Tragik 1
People so unhappy 4 hr Everyone knows 9
Guest House or Parkway N? 4 hr rnchhhos 2
iron order mc vs. the outlaws mc (Jan '10) 8 hr Whaler 527
flag and such 14 hr Fun 2
Why? 14 hr Fun 1
Why do White Women's holes smell ??? (Apr '12) 14 hr Fun 43
More from around the web

Cartersville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Cartersville Mortgages