Anyone interested in the subject of race, from a black perspective unbeholden to the "race political macine" might want to view the DVD "What Black Men Think". It's a refutation of the US government's social policies of the last four decades. You can find it here:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Black-Thi...3993731&sr=8-1
It will rock many out of their preconceived notions of race as well as what is actually happening in the black community. Some may be shocked to discover that there are other black conservatives other than Clarence Thomas, but the DVD includes noted black liberals such as Juan Williams as well.
I'm not going to get into, once again, answering sck5's points as he's impervious to any input and, rather than respond, he merely changes the subject. It was predictable that he'd play the race card. He get's a little gold star next to his name for denouncing humour that employed a common "black" name and accent. He conveniently forgets that certain names and accents make up a goodly portion of American humour irrespective of race and that all races avail themselves of such humour. the gold star is for display of superior sensitivity in the face of, well, rational discourse? For someone who claims to not be a typical liberal Democrat, he sure seems to evince all of the symptoms. (g)
Windy brings up an interesting point of demographics. The fact that the south is the fastest growing section of the country and is notably more conservative than the northeast, midwest, and pacific northwest it's hardly surprising that either party would value it's electoral votes. That the Democrats lost the "solid south" is a historical fact that cannot be explained by civil rights legislation alone. The 1960's Democratic party lost the south for many reasons and, as Windy states, it was not for lack of southern understanding of the Democratic party platform. That the Democratic party is unable to regain southern votes speaks still more to the party than to southerners. They, like most of the rest of the country, understand exactly what the Democrat party stands for. That's why, as a whole, the country can now be considered conservative-moderate.
Windy omitted only one detail in his spot-on analysis. The urban areas are the home of the political machines. The old patronage system as well as unionization are still powerful forces within America's larger cities. If you're involved in government within those cities you're a Democrat, regardless of how you privately vote. and you're well advised to keep your conservative views well hidden unless you know exactly to whom you're speaking. There is no comparable Republican machine because the notion of government dispensing favors is antithetical to the Republican ethos (in principle!).
That rural blacks would vote in varying patterns is no surprise absent the provisions of the big city political machine. In a country where the turn-out rarely get's north or south of 50%, blacks can be just as apathetic as whites. What does differentiate rural blacks from urban blacks is that rural blacks have a commodity that many urban blacks do not; a job. Having a job and paying taxes is a far better predicter of voting patterns than is race. Job holders are part of "the system" and much less likely to be aggrieved at the lack of government largesse. And we know which party is the party of government largesse.
To the extent that Republicans are down it is due far more to their own failings than any new ideas from the Democrat party. The Republican Congress and the Republican President acted like Democrat-lite in their control of the White House and Congress. They'll never win that battle; if you want candy, you vote for the Candyman not a parsimonious uncle you happened to catch while on a bender. It's going to take some time to erase the memories of Republicans who thought they could compete by just being a stricter nanny than the Dems.
Early on in this thread I mentioned my $100 wager that a Republican would win the White House in '08. I'm as confident as I was at that time. The war's in Iraq and Afghanistan are again Republican strengths. As I've stated elsewhere, Americans are not against those wars; they're against losing those wars. Now that demonstrable positive progress is being made the war's and the larger war on terror become Republican strengths. The shellacking of Ms. Clinton of recent is largely due to her inability to take a rational position on those war's. Mr. Obama has painted himself in a dangerous position come the general election. Ms. Clinton knows that she will have to move to the right in a general election; Mr. Obama may not be able to do so.
The only thing that can put a Democrat in the White House next year is a worsening of the economy. I know of one mentally depressed condo-dealer in central Florida who's betting on it. (g)
Connect with Facebook
