Bush dishonestly spinning Kerry's debate statements
 

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:18:51 GMT, rllipham
wrote:

Twenty years ago the South was Democrat. How can we trust those
guys? They are just a bunch of flip-floppers.

Actually, in political terms, not party terms, the South has always
tended to be conservative. Landed gentry and all that. However, when
the post war reconstruction started with republican carpet baggers
(appointed by the party of Lincoln but with the liberal anti-slavery
sentiment and to-the-victor righteousness) flooding the South, taking
over the government, and offending almost every tenet the citizens
held dear, the southerners rebelled the only way they could by taking
the opposing political side on the ballot: the Democratic Party.

As the carpet baggers were eventually driven out it continued to be
politically expedient to register and vote Democratic if you wanted to
get into public office.

That lasted almost 100 years until Lyndon Johnson strongarmed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress, a decidedly unconservative
piece of legislation. Even he said at the time that the passage of
that act would turn the "traditionally Democratic" south over to the
republicans for a long time.

Turncoats like Strom Thurmond and others were only able to come out of
the conservative closet as part of that backlash.

We're still paying the price 40 years later.

And you're right: how can you trust those guys?

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"LRod" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 23:18:51 GMT, rllipham
wrote:

Twenty years ago the South was Democrat. How can we trust those
guys? They are just a bunch of flip-floppers.

Actually, in political terms, not party terms, the South has always
tended to be conservative. Landed gentry and all that. However, when
the post war reconstruction started with republican carpet baggers
(appointed by the party of Lincoln but with the liberal anti-slavery
sentiment and to-the-victor righteousness) flooding the South, taking
over the government, and offending almost every tenet the citizens
held dear, the southerners rebelled the only way they could by taking
the opposing political side on the ballot: the Democratic Party.

As the carpet baggers were eventually driven out it continued to be
politically expedient to register and vote Democratic if you wanted to
get into public office.

That lasted almost 100 years until Lyndon Johnson strongarmed the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress, a decidedly unconservative
piece of legislation. Even he said at the time that the passage of
that act would turn the "traditionally Democratic" south over to the
republicans for a long time.

Turncoats like Strom Thurmond and others were only able to come out of
the conservative closet as part of that backlash.

We're still paying the price 40 years later.


By the way, Clinton's autobiography describes those very times and changes,
which he witnessed as an insider, in very much the same way as you did.
Interesting stuff for someone a bit too young to have observed it in person.

Jeff Harper

"philski" wrote in message
...
Todd Fatheree wrote:
"I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the
directive of the United Nations." - John Kerry.
Kerry said the above to The Crimson in 1970. Now, some might say "well,
that was 34 years ago". But he wasn't 16 years old at the time, he was
27
and I believe he understood what he was saying. IMO, a statement such
as
this is a core belief not likely to change by keeping a Senate seat warm
for
20 years. He lost the election he was running for a the time, so he has
apparently learned you can't say that and get elected. So, now he says
that
if he was presented with a threat and could not get UN support, he would
proceed unilaterally. Wow, that's a big departure from Bush's policy.

todd


So, you are saying that John Kerry can't change, mature, or foment new
ideas and opinions? You're saying a "leopard doesn't change his spots"?
So how 'bout Shrub's drinking and coking days, and how he "found Christ"
and changed his ways? You are quite the narrow minded ass ya know?

Philksi

At least there's actual evidence that Bush has changed his prior habits.
There hasn't been any reason to think that Herman Munster has based on his
voting record.. I mean, does this guy have *any* core beliefs? He's had
several positions on the war just in the past several months. Boy, this guy
sure foments lots of new ideas and opinions...often daily. Now you and Jeff
can go back to stroking each other.

todd

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 23:22:28 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
wrote:

Because it's important and affects most of us. The thread *was* started
with a "Pol:" to indicate it was off-topic but that seems to have gotten
lost.

[Geek]

It should have been prefixed with [Pol] not Pol:

Some newsreaders (most obviously Outlook) have incorrect behaviour
regarding usenet subject lines. Rather than using "" on comments to
a thread, they internationalise this to the local language. Swedish
and Sv: seems to be the most commonly encountered. Because they can
no longer rely on a prefix of , they assume that _any_ prefix
ending with a colon is a follow-up marker and strip and replace it
with their local version, in this case.

To avoid the problem, use [Pol], [Ad], [Ebay], [FA], [Spam] etc.
instead.


As with any problem, either woodworking or political, it's basically
M$oft's fault.

Andy Dingley said:

To avoid the problem, use [Pol], [Ad], [Ebay], [FA], [Spam] etc.
instead.

Correct, except omit the (SPAM) part.
We don't want ANY of that here...

As with any problem, either woodworking or political, it's basically
M$oft's fault.

This is true. ;-)


Greg G.

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ...

At least there's actual evidence that Bush has changed his prior habits.
There hasn't been any reason to think that Herman Munster has based on his
voting record.. I mean, does this guy have *any* core beliefs? He's had
several positions on the war just in the past several months. Boy, this guy
sure foments lots of new ideas and opinions...often daily. Now you and Jeff
can go back to stroking each other.

todd

There is a condition known (to those of us who have worked in the
field of addiction and substance abuse) as the "dry
drunk"--specifically, it is the persistence, in soberiety, of
behaviors and personality traits typical of the drunken/still using
condition. These are very difficult to change, requiring literally
years of constant work in (especially) 12-step groups or similar kinds
of therapy. It is also the case that times of stress can create a
resurgance of these behaviors and traits.

Effectively counteracting these "dry drunk" conditions requires an
ability to admit that one's behavior and choices are not working,
similar to the admission of powerlessness in the 12-step tradition of
sobriety. Persistence in the belief that one need not change,
especially in the face of contrary evidence, is one indicator of a
full blown episode of "dry drunk" behavior (there are others).

Everything the President has said about the war--that he would not
have done anything differently, that things are really getting
better--fly in the face of all the evidence. We continually engage in
new offensives because "the mission is [NOT] accomplished". Now we
hear that the reason our troops are dying in greater numbers each
month is that we "won" the war too fast!

Furthermore, the evidence so far seems to fly in the face of his
assertion that the world is safer without Saddam in power. Ask our
grunts on the ground in Falluja if that is true. You can't ask those
poor souls who've lost their heads--they certainly weren't any safer,
but...they still had their heads until Saddam was toppled. And
there's no reason to believe, unfortunately, they're the only ones
who'll be beheaded. This new twist on middle east terrorism didn't
catch hold until after Saddam fell. A safer world indeed!

I don't see any credible evidence that Bush is anything other than a
sober drunk, if the sober even applies. What I see is a man way out
of control, trying desperately (emphasize that) to look otherwise.

Dan