The Southern Correction, Truman to Dean

[burning bush]

Strom Thurmond pulled the DixieCrats away from the Dem Party in a 1948 response to Harry Truman's Civil Rights agenda.

Now, less than a year following Sen. Thurmonds death, it appears that a new Dem--who has been described as a modern day Harry Truman--is on the verge of capturing his party's nomination, and has made it very clear that the South needs to come home because the've been used and abused, and left up-river by the Republican party.

Interestingly, Thurmond revolted in a States Rights movement, and it may be another States Rights movement that brings the south back again.

Dean has often linked his policies into a States Rights agenda, which is not surprising, considering his long run as a feisty, independent minded Governor of a feisty, independent minded state. The experience of a Governor is very different of that of a Senator, or of any official raised on the Washington dole. Dean, and any other Governor, has an outsider's view of DC. Take a look at Dean's platform, and you'll see plenty of evidence his view on the rights of States.

Gun rights, women's choice, civil unions, taxes, health care, education, domestic security...Dean holds a progressive view of each of these issues, but he also sides with the right of the state to stand on its own standards, maintaining a relationship with Washington that is based on respect, not subservience.

Look past Dean's comments on the Confederate flag, and you'll see a man who thinks that the South has been let down, and that the Dems are the party who can bring hope, respect, and security to all Southern voters. Dean can help unite the South, instead of dividing the races.

Civil rights apply to all men, not just racial minorities. It's time that all of the South experienced the benefits of the civil rights movement, and that this country corrected the mistakes made in 1948, when the term "States Rights" was stolen and corrupted by Republicans who used the concept to pander to a racist Southern minority.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[burning bush]

6. Must have been nasty

I didn't even get a chance to read it. For the best, I'm sure

[FreeperSlayer]

2. I knew Harry Truman..

..and Mr. Dean, you're no HST.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Right. Howard's not Harry.

Howard hasn't proposed nuking anybody.

[DemBones DemBones]

41. Harry never proposed nuking anybody,

either, until he was president, WW II had been going on for years, and he was presented with the option of using the new bomb.

Who knows what Howard will do in office? He's not opposed to war in general, has made some very hawkish comments at times. Says his view on Israel is close to that of AIPAC.

:shrug:

[JVS]

8. You knew him for real?

I'm impressed

[Clark4VotingRights]

42. Let's hope not.

Truman nuked a country that had surrendered, and started
the cold war. Just to show Stalin who's boss.

[HFishbine]

4. Nice

Yours?

[burning bush]

5. Thanks

Yep, mine

[w4rma]

7. Fantastic post, burning bush! I fully agree! (n/t)

[BuelahWitch]

9. That was a beautiful piece of writing BB n/t

[Duder]

10. Something rare

A quality post.

Well done. :thumbsup:

[burning bush]

11. Kick

no debate on this eh? I take that as a sign of agreement :)

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SahaleArm]

13. LOL - All pandering all the time...

That image is hilarious - Fark away.

[burning bush]

14. This is your idea of debate?

Only a Southerner can win the south?

What a crock of grits!

And Dean is clueless? Thats rich. Dean is the only candidate that seems to understand that Southerners are not ignorant, the truth of which you seem to be unaware.

Southern white voters might just respond to something or someone other than a Southern, white candidate. Southerners are not as superficial as you hope, they are. They are Americans, with families, needs, and problems shared by the rest of the country. They are individuals.

You just don't get it, do you?

Perhaps you never will.

[SahaleArm]

15. Yes - they like being patronized...

Dean is on to something with his new 'Jesus-Confederate-Southern' strategy.

[Cheswick2.0]

19. You have some problem with Jesus?

or did you forget that in America we are all free to talk about religious philosophy?
No better to pretend southerners are all so stupid they can't figure out who to vote for unless he is a southern macho military image.

[SahaleArm]

25. Clairvoyant? n/t

[burning bush]

20. See, I thought so..."They"

you're not evenfrom the South, and you pretend to speak for all us Southern folk.

Oh please, throw us po' suthnahs a bone! Give us a man with a drawl and we just gon' fold ovah!

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!

You have no idea about the South, and less idea about Dean's strategy!

In fact, your only concept of stategy is to try to diminish Dean. But since you don't really understand Dean, your attacks end up sounding like memorized talking points.

Listen up, I'm going to help you. Read about Dean. Take a few notes. Read about Truman and Civil Rights, read about Strom Thurmond, read about Nixon's Southern Strategy, and then come back and play some more. I'll have more fun, and you'll have learned something.

[SahaleArm]

22. Care to explain how current Southern Democrats have won seats? n/t

[burning bush]

28. Apples and Oranges

Locals win Local seats in EVERY state, we're talking about national, presidential politics.

[SahaleArm]

29. Are you implying that Dems have never won on Economic Populism? n/t

[tedoll78]

16. I say this as a Southerner:

Screw the South.

If they want to collectively vote like retards while wondering why they're always 45-through-50 on quality of life studies, let them. Regardless of whom we nominate, the midwest is where our campaign will live or die.

We fake a campaign in Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and then..
Gore states + Ohio. That is all.

[SahaleArm]

17. Ohio is Republican lean - Easier said than done...

Bush (50.0%)
Gore (46.4%)
Nader (2.5%)

[tedoll78]

18. Still,

I think it can be done easier than Florida, or any other Southern state for that matter.

- Ohio has lost TONS of manufacturing jobs in the past few years.
- Gore lost it by 4%.
- Gore pulled his ads off the air 3 weeks before election day and his campaign went dark for that period of time.
- Nader pulled 2%.
- Imagine if we were to put-together a decent GOTV drive there, unlike 2000.
- The NRA hurt us. Ouch.

It'll take a huge effort, in scale of the effort we put forth in Florida four years ago, but I think it's worthwhile.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. oh the scaredy cat theory

We can't win unless we act like republicans. Forget it, there is a reason people are democrats and not republican and they are not going to vote for the "dress like a republican, act like a republican" strategy. A Clark nomination will lose more states than it will gain.

[SahaleArm]

23. More Dean drivel...

Outside of a self-professed love for Dean do you have a point?

[burning bush]

26. I think the point is that you are directionless

unless you are attacking Dean.

[SahaleArm]

27. As opposed to the post I was replying to? Clark bashing all the time n/t

[burning bush]

30. As opposed to anyone with direction

:)

[SahaleArm]

31. Call it directed drivel...

;)

[burning bush]

24. Nice point Cheswick

Clark brings nothing to the party at this time. If you want mach military posturing, you're probably going to vote for a Republican.

Leading requires getting ahead of the Republican agenda and redirecting their debate, not repeating their talking points and following their orders like a good soldier.

[QC]

43. Ohio has gone Republican in 6 of the past 10 presidential elections.

If we stick to elections since 1980, it looks even worse, with us carrying Ohio only twice in that time--2 out of 6.

I keep hearing people say that all we need to do is pick up Gore's states plsu Ohio and we win, but neither of those is as easy as folks make them sound.

Many of the Gore states were very, very close, and Ohio tends to go Republican.

[burning bush]

46. Which is exacly why the standard Dem approach is risky

And changing the debate up on Bush is essential. We may win, or we may not win when we challenge Bush on standard domestic and Nat Security issues, but when we turn the table against Bush by taking issue with his most horrendous injustice - the downward slide from a Republic of American States to a top heavy, bloated Empire, then we simply cannot lose.

[quaker bill]

32. A well considered post

Thanks for taking the time.

[Jerseycoa]

33. Good job speaking for your candidate

Very good job.

[bain_sidhe]

34. See, this is why I don't buy the

"Dean is unelectable" crap. This is a reasonable argument. Will it fly in the south? I have no idea. And that's the point. I have no idea. There's no evidence that the "economic realignment" will or won't work because nobody's ever *tried* it. I'm more comfortable with my candidate's chances in the south, simply because there's more documentation that it works - support for the military is very strong in the south, and the notion that southerners prefer to vote for another southerner who they feel "understands" their culture. And, in fact, I expect Clark to *add* the economic appeal to his other "South-positive" qualities.

But we've got nothing that says the economic appeal combined with a strong states-rights stance *won't* work, although I'm antsy about taking the risk when finding out might mean four more years of DimSon and his neoconservative cabal.

One concern I have is that the media won't let Dean make (or at least, give any attention to) the economic part of the argument. There's a *reason* that in the whole "confederate flag" flap, only a couple of reports included the *rest* of the line... "because their kids need health care too." That, IMHO was just about the strongest part of the statement, and it got left out REPEATEDLY - and often enough that I don't think it was done by accident.

I know I'm wandering all over the place here, and since I'm not a Dean supporter, I'm not here to sing his praises. But I'm just sick of reading character attacks on Dean instead of reasoned arguments about which strategy might or might not work. I DON'T think all of Dean's strategies will work (notice the avatar), but simply *having* a strategy is not evidence of moral turpitude.

[burning bush]

35. I appreciate the argument!

really, I do! You raise the level of debate.

My quick response to you would be that the Dean Quick Response team has done a great job of fighting fires in the press. And, when face with ridiculous attack, they have shown great skill at smacking down the opposition

(See this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=96022&mesg_id=96022)

We have two debates that we can take to Bush. It's possible that either of them could be won by a Dem, with varrying results.

But only one of those debates can be won by Bush. Dean provides a debate that Bush just can't win, not without going back and arguing against his own first four years in office.

That's why I'm for Dean.

[bain_sidhe]

37. I agree that

We have two debates that we can take to Bush. It's possible that either of them could be won by a Dem, with varrying results.

But only one of those debates can be won by Bush.

But which one?

I'm assuming you mean the domestic vs the international debate. But if the economy's doing well in Sept/Oct, Bush can win that one, if the "War" is going well, he can *probably* win that one. (Note, it's my unhappy opinion that if *both* are doing well, Bush will probably win in any case.)

So, the question becomes, which is *more likely* to be going badly during the General Election time frame? My bet is on the war - or at least the international situation - because bush and his corporate/wealthy/cronies don't control that, at least not as easily. Especially with Bush pissing off every trading partner that *could* help. Do you doubt that between Bush's rich buddies and corporations that they'll be able to produce a U.S. stock market bump in time for the election? True, those of us who are paying attention will likely see it as illusionary, but what about the average voter who's just trying to save enough to send the kids to college, or to retire on?

So, I'm betting the election will be about foreign policy/national security, and I think that Clark can win that one in an NY minute.

Over to you...

**edited because I screwed up the formatting**

[burning bush]

38. What IS The Argument?

I'm assuming you mean the domestic vs the international debate

No, actually, I mean the standard debate vs. the non standard, and I'm glad you asked this quetion.

The standard debate is on Peace and Prosperity. Bush could win this debate, and so could a Dem. It's up in the air. I know that to US, Bush loses this debate handily, but it won't play that way across the US.

The other debate is on States Rights. Bush has built a Big Brother monolith in DC, even some Republicans have lost faith in BushCo.

Our federal government under Bush has GROWN, become more intrusive, and less concerned with the rights of states.

Dean has been laying the groundwork to take a progressive stance on a variety of issues, but filtered through the lense of the rights of states, communities, and individuals to remain free from an oppressive federal government.

Take this debate to Bush and you'll attract some Republicans, some Independents, and a few Southern states as well.

That is the debate Bush cannot win.

That is the winning argument for 2004, and only Dean is in the position to make it.

[bain_sidhe]

40. Good strategy, and could work, I think

But I have to disagree with this:

That is the winning argument for 2004

I'd say that it is A winning argument, but not the only winning argument. I'm sticking with Clark, because I want him to be President, and I want his diplomatic/negotiating skills in the international arena. But I can get behind Dean, and this strategy, if he turns out to be the nominee.

I also think Bush would try to do a counter argument - and it *might* work - by pointing at his (to me, distressing) tendancy to convert social services policy and money into block grants to states with few or no restrictions or prescriptions on how the money is spent. It's this strategy that has dropped millions of children off the CHIPS rolls, and put many many aid programs on the chopping block, but who cares (republicanly speaking, that is) as long as the states get full control over that money so they don't have to spend it on "undeserving" poor people.

[loyalsister]

44. The trade off

is states wind up with less in matching funds and we have the budget crises we see now across the country. Most would rather be told to spend their money if it means they'll have enough of it.
Bush can make that argument all he wants, but anyone who is informed, knows that block grants don't help states unless they are swimming in cash. A lot of states have their taxes tied to the federal tax code leading to shortfalls when there is a tax cut. That tax cuts have been disasterous!

[AnnabelLee]

36. I enjoyed reading your post

Interestingly, Thurmond revolted in a States Rights movement, and it may be another States Rights movement that brings the south back again.

Much food for thought here.:thumbsup:

[LuminousX]

39. Awesome. Well reasoned analysis!

[loyalsister]

45. Excellent!!!

Very well thought out and articulated!
Modern "states rights" could be expanded to include an "entitlement to not be bankrupted by immediate successive federal tax cuts."

This is how the "Bush tax" becomes totally unforgettable. People in southern states are feeling this budget problem at the state level. That's exactly why he's taking this approach. It's perfect!