On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:45:55 -0500, David Hartung
<d_hartung@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> And a 3% or 4% win in what has been a safe repug seat for decades, a
>> district that went for Bush nearly 2 to 1, is catastrophic for the
repug
>> party.
>>
>> There will be a mjor shakeup in the party leader****p.
>
>No argument there.
>
>I voted for Davis, but this has been a close race from day one, and
>Childers' victory does not surprise me. In truth, I am not certain that
>there will be much difference between Davis, or Childers. One thing is
>certain, the man who held the seat that Childers now holds was a decent
>guy, but he was no believer in limited government.
By "limited government", do you mean it like the
conservative movement does (run by racist leader****p)
that had the federal government been "limited"
desegregation would not have occurred?
Or don't you believe your own eyes and ears knowing
that those most vocal against Brown v Board and
"Bussing" were former democrats that flocked to the GOP
and STILL argue "states rights"?
>==============================================
>From the beginning of the Democratic party, through the civil war and the
New Deal,
> the South was the foundation stone of the party's national strength.
With the coming
>of the civil-rights revolution, Democratic presidents Kennedy and Johnson
deployed the
> federal government to sup****t social equality. In reaction, Republicans
- from Goldwater
>to Nixon to Reagan - developed a Southern strategy to win over white
voters in the
>region who felt betrayed. That strategy involved using widely understood
code going
>back to the civil war - phrases like "states' rights", used to justify
slavery - in an
>updating of the well-worn strategy of invoking race to keep poor white
and black
>Americans divided on issues of common interest. Thus the party of Lincoln
>became the party of Reagan.
|
