News-Record.com

You're RIGHT, Jackie Ray Nelson .. the Democratic candidates are the ONLY ones that, year after year, garner votes by telling folks they want to hear.

Here's an interest read:

http://www.amazon.com/World-Works-Anniversary-Gateway-Contemporary/dp/0895263440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201768476&sr=8-1

Rockhead a better example, just look at the state of NC, has been run a 100 years by democrats! If its good we are at the bottom of it, if its bad we are at the top of it. Lets face it neither party gives a damn about (we the people) its all about the party.

And money, dog.

Neither party represents the people, that is why there are more independents that Democrats and Republicans combined.

Republicans try to help their rich friends get richer at taxpayer expense. Democrats try to help their rich friends get richer at taxpayer expense. It's just a different set of friends. There is one difference: Republicans, at least most recently--think LBJ, told a thousand lies and sent us to war and are trying as hard as they can to start another one before they get kicked out of the White House. They have spent us into debt, diverted money out of the economy into war, created the economic environment that is leading to recession, and engendered endemic corruption in our financial system. Actually, these things happen every time the Republicans gain power.

We should elect only moderates from either party, moderates who are fiscally conservative and keep their personal ideology out of our lives. Oh, it would be nice if they had to work for a living, too.

verelse said: "We should elect only moderates from either party, moderates who are fiscally conservative and keep their personal ideology out of our lives. Oh, it would be nice if they had to work for a living, too "

I'm affraid utopia just dosen't exist!

I don't think a person like this would be drawn in politics, at least not anymore.

"Many of my African American friends tell me nothing has changed; they feel that it never will."

Like the "armchair conservatives" who post here, I've got a twenty that says this guy uses the 'N' word on a regular basis. "Many" of his African American friends? Does that include people who work for him??!!

I find it interesting that of the folks who voted for Obama in SC, most were young (inexperienced). Most who voted for other candidates were older, more experienced and hopefully wiser. Older age does not always equate wiser, but historically it does. Most people who have lived through many presidents have a better feel for who's lying.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. The older folks who voted for Bush, not once but twice, proved there are exceptions to that rule.

Democrats' hold on the black vote has much to do with the way the concept of "civil rights" has evolved over the past four decades. I spoke to this in a letter published today in the Asheville Citizen-Times. Excerpt below

"When 'civil rights' morphed into cross-town busing to racially balance schools in the 1970s and 1980s, thus emptying urban districts of their middle class ... when “civil rights” began to equate to racial preferences, quotas and set-asides ... when 'civil rights' meant creation of a permanent nonworking welfare underclass, thanks to President Lyndon Johnson’s 'Great Society' welfare programs (reversed to some extent by Republican welfare reform legislation in 1996) ... when 'civil rights' came to mean all of these things, there was indeed a drift away from Democratic Party social engineering/identity politics toward a Republican individual rights/initiative philosophy."

* * *

COMMENT: A lot of Republicans do not buy into the new "civil rights" agenda. Unfortunately, many African-Americans do. There is the tension --- and the opportunity for Democrats: social engineering/group rights/identity politics --- by race, gender, sexual orientation. This suits the Democratic Party to a tee.

I blame our egregiously ineffective government schooling monopolies for producing this
vulnerability among African-Americans. The would not be captives of the Democratic Party were they not also captives of the schooling monopolies.

Tom Shuford says,
"A lot of Republicans do not buy into the new "civil rights" agenda."

You are right there, Tom.

In fact, one of the most polarizing effects of the Civil Rights movement was the unabashed opposition to even granting Civil Rights---by Republicans! Look it up--look at all the Republicans who opposed everything from voting rights for blacks to integration of schools and work. The "Southern Strategy" of the GOP is what turned the South into a solid red region. It is an ugly legacy, which you somehow seem to embrace. I can remember the "Academies" that sprang up all over the South to provide White children a segregated education post Brown Vs. Topeka. You have no problem pointing the finger at African Americans, so where is your anger at Republican party that opposed civil rights?

`

Liberal Conservative: "Look it up--look at all the Republicans who opposed everything from voting rights for blacks..."

Challenge accepted:

The original House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

The total are in yes-no format:

Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

* * *

Conclusion: Republicans were stronger supporters of equal rights than Democrats.

Voting rights Act of 1965:

The two numbers in each line of this list refer to the number of representatives voting in favor and against the act, respectively.

Senate: 77–19

Democrats: 47–17
Republicans: 30–2
House: 333–85

Democrats: 221–61
Republicans: 112–24
Conference Report:

Senate: 79–18

Democrats: 49–17
Republicans: 30–1
House: 328–74

Democrats: 217–54
Republicans: 111–20

* * *
Conclusion: Republicans were stronger supporter of voting rights than Democrats.

But I will grant that in the ensuing decades many whites shifted from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in parallel with the shift in the agenda of the "Civil Rights" movement from equal rights to preferences, set-asides, quotas, forced busing and the like.

Forcing busing, in particular --- pushed hard by editorial boards and Civil Rights "leaders" in the 70s and 80s --- literally drove the middle class from U. S. cities. How? By wiping out neighborhood schools, the glue that held communities together. Were Republicans/whites less than eager to have their children become pawns of an arrogant liberal elite?

Surprisingly, they were too thrillled by the idea.

I had a letter published on this topic in Education Week. Excerpting:

"The tragic history of school desegregation since the Brown v. Board of Education decision owes much to the lack of imagination of desegregation's anointed champions. Would-be tyrants all, these oft-cited academics and civil rights leaders could conceive of no role for freedom. They know only the logic of coercion: Force flattened Jim Crow, dismantling our own apartheid system, therefore force can integrate society—beginning with schools.

"In the zealot's mind, the failure of school desegregation was not due to their own urgent impulse to coerce. They were unjustly denied sufficient scope for this impulse. The villains were fleeing whites who would not submit to their designs, and a 1974 U.S. Supreme Court that could not find a constitutional basis for ordering busing between urban and suburban districts. This latter fantasy is a sublime denial of the political realities of the time, quite apart from constitutional limitations.

"So what happened? Detroit is typical. Eighty-four percent white in 1954, the Detroit public schools are 3.7 percent white today . . ."

Resolved:

Leftists, liberals and Democrats will always be among us, but let us try find harmless outlets for their totalitarian impulses.

"These politicians are interested in themselves, their families, immediate friends and cronies they will represent if and when they are elected, along with the power, prestige and wealth that accompany the position."

In contrast, we have the pure-as-driven-snow party of Haliburton, Enron, Jack Abramoff, and the secret energy task force. That would also be the party that set all-time records for numbers and amounts of earmarks.

There's so little purity to choose from.

"There's so little purity to choose from."

I'm working on this theory:

Half the folks want a government handout.
>> 1/2 of that half want g-men to hand them cash because they are disadvantaged in some way; they typically vote Democrat.
>> the other 1/2 of that half want g-men to hand them cash because they are advantaged in some way; they typically vote Republican.

Half the folks expect personal responsiblity.
>> 1/2 of that half believe personal responsiblity extends to everyone, and for reasons I'm still trying to figure out, they expect g-men to act fairly too. This half typically votes Democrat.
>> the other of that half also believes personal responsiblity extends to everyone, and for reasons I'm still trying to figure out, this half typically votes Republican.

James,
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility when it comes to guns, but don't trust a woman with a choice.
Conservatives believe welfare should be abolished---except for corporate welfare.

Just two that struck me this morning as I read this story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22945042/

War profiteering was a crime during WWII, but it seems under the "conservatives" idea, it is okay and even "Good".
Go figure.