Why did McGovern lose so badly?

[??????????]

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

Rising Prices, Unpopular war, Negative media against a incumbent. hmm.

[??????????]

McGovern = Kerry.

The difference is that Kerry is probably going to win.

40% Chance.

[??????????]

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

Rising Prices, Unpopular war, Negative media against a incumbent. hmm.

I'd see your point if Kerry advocated complete unconditional withdrawl from Iraq.

He does, he just flip flopped to try and appease moderates. I hope most voters see that.

[??????????]

But most importantly -- something nobody has mentioned yet -- is that 1972 was the year that the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" (a.ka., appeal to racist whites) really kicked into high gear for the first time. This is really the ongoing appeal of the Republican party in the south and rural midwest. The Republicans have successfully positioned themselves as the "we're one of you and we'll protect you against THEM (i.e., other Americans) party."

Give it a rest already. Democrats are the party of the slaver and history backs me up on that.

[??????????]

Give it a rest already. Democrats are the party of the slaver and history backs me up on that.

Using similar logic, I could say that the Republican party is the party of slavery, because Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder and he was a member of a party called the Republican party. Never mind that it wasn't the same Republican party. In the same way, the Democratic party that exists today has nothing to do with the Democratic party of the slaveholders, especially considering that all the people with the attitudes and agenda of the slaveholders switched to the Republican party since the 1960s. Which party did Strom Thurmond die a member of, eh?

Democrats still believe in a form of slavery. It's called dependence on the federal government. Dependence = Slavery.
Independence = Freedom. Have we forgotten Senator Byrd from West Virginia? Renowned KKK member.

[??????????]

BTW, Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat NOT a Republican. The Democratic Republican Party which he founded in opposition to the Federalist Party dropped the "Republican" part of the name by 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran for president. One of the Democratic Party's big annual fundraising events if the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner.

Jefferson was neither a Democrat or a Republican in terms of the modern party names. He and his followers referred to themselves exclusively as "Republicans" and the "Republican party." The Democratic-Republican party (which became the Democratic party) was not created until the split between Jackson and John Q. Adams's National Republicans in the 1820s. Jefferson himself never used, nor had ever heard of the name "Democratic-Republican."

The point is that Jefferson's Republican party is not the same party as today's Republican party. Similarly, the pro-slavery Democratic party of the mid 19th century and the pro-segregation southern Democrats of the 20th century have nothing to do with today's Democratic party, especially since all the segregationists switched to the Republican party.

And, BTW, today's Democratic and Republican parties both claim Jefferson as a model and a hero. So that counts for nil.

They did not "all switch" as you try and make it out to sound. Most blacks flipped to the Democratic party in the late '40s because Southern Democrats threatened to cut off benefits if they didn't ditch the GOP. Some of the most vile racists I know are Democrats. Racism does NOT have party lines.

[??????????]

Also hilariously, StatesRights named a pro-slavery racist as his most comparable politician and called Lincoln a fascist.

Lincoln was a facist, commie. LBJ was a great humanitarian towards the black man, huh? Welfare is a form of economic slavery! And the Democrats insist on public assitance. The elitist plantation mentality still exists in the Democratic party.

[??????????]

LBJ was a worthless scumbag, but not for any racial reasons.

He was one of the most vile racists (next to Al Gore Sr.) during the 1960s.

[??????????]

He was one of the most vile racists (next to Al Gore Sr.) during the 1960s.

I'd hate to be the one to break this to you, but Al Gore Sr. supported civil rights when few other senators did.

At the same time, Strom Thurmond opposed civil rights.

From most old timers I know from Tennesee who either knew him or his politics he was a racist. LBJ was a well known racist and tried to cover his tracks by signing the Civil Rights act. A largely Republican supported act. Bob Dole was one of the main leaders on that act.

[??????????]

Can we all just agree that there is a significant difference between what the political parties might have stood historically and what they stand for today? I also scarcely equate public assistance with slavery, StatesRights, considering that people aren't kidnapped, taken across the high seas from their native land, sold at auction, and then become welfare recipients.

Welfare holds people back from the true potential. Most people will take the freebie over having to go out and work for it themselves.

[??????????]

Welfare holds people back from the true potential. Most people will take the freebie over having to go out and work for it themselves.

Disagreeing with policy on policy grounds is one thing. So you don't like welfare ... It's still more than ridiculous to equate it to slavery or segregation or racism. (For one thing, it has nothing to do with race.)

Welfare absolutely DOES have a lot to do with race. Dependence on the government is equivalent to slavery in the same way as the slaves were dependent on the plantation master. What party is the party of the free check handout? If you keep people dependent on you you can easily subvert them to your way of thinking.

[??????????]

Welfare absolutely DOES have a lot to do with race. Dependence on the government is equivalent to slavery in the same way as the slaves were dependent on the plantation master. What party is the party of the free check handout? If you keep people dependent on you you can easily subvert them to your way of thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were tricked down here in the south. In the late 40's they were told that the Democratic majority state governments would cut off their benefits if they did not ditch the GOP. Basically they baited black republicans into switching parties. I am currently reading a book written in 1949 on this exact subject. Saying people on welfare don't vote is a broad generalization and is not 100% true. People are fooled into believing that a welfare state will somehow help them advance when in fact it is holding those on it back from their full potential.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can hear it coming, "The tax cuts only benefit the rich". This is the biggest lie that the Democrats like to put out. I HAVE in fact benefited from the cuts. But I believe the more you pay in the more you should get back. Fair is fair. The rich keep this economy going whether we can accept that fact or not. Buying their votes has everything to do with race. If you can win their hearts and minds with free money they are going to be very hard to sway them enough to see how much it is actually hurting them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here we go with the accustations of racism. Again, more blacks do benefit from the welfare system because they are the majority of the users. I beg you to show me numbers contrary to that. Maybe it is different down south here but I do not know ANY whites personally who are on welfare. I am not rich I do not make more then 50k a year so don't accuse me of being rich and out of touch. I know many poor blacks that ARE on welfare, they are good people and I have no personal problem with them. But the problem is that check is like a drug. If their is no incentive to get out and look for work then it is so obvious that they would rather just take the check and be done with it. I believe that once you DO find gainful employment a small portion of what you've taken should be paid back to the state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe the whole welfare system is dangerous to our freedom and government. That is why I strongly believe in faith based initiatives. Churches and other non-profits should be left in charge (with the states very light supervision) of feeding the truly needy and the states should build schools to train those who are not educated enough to find work or skilled employment.

[??????????]

The governments job is NOT to give handouts to the people. Plain and simple. Show me in the constitution where it exists. It's not there. Its not one of the constitutionally mandated jobs of the Federal government to provide a welfare state. If the states want to set up welfare programs then I believe it is their right to. Any federally mandated program for benefits such as welfare are unconstitutional, IMHO. Their is a old saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life." Instead of handing out free checks the states need to encourage people to go out and find work. The only people who should recieve any benefits whatsoever from the government (on the state level) would be those who are permanently disabled and the elderly. I have no problem with temporary unemployment with a max of 6 weeks. That's my belief. I will not call you names, I am above that.

[??????????]

One could argue that welfare benefits are part of a group of substantiated rights under the General Welfare Clause. This could be based upon the concept of welfare benefits as property rights under the Due Process Clause, the position accepted by the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, and the implicit notion that there is a right to an education, adumbrated in Plyler v. Doe.

I must caution you that I do not necessarily accept this interpretation. I do not believe that the Constitution is an economic document, which explains my reluctance to interpret it to encompass economic rights, such as welfare benefits. I shall have to think about it. But, should that ever come to pass, this is how it shall happen in all probability.

I also believe that welfare legislation is allowable under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's appropriate that your name is StatesRights, since you would skew the idea of federalism to the point of depriving the federal government of meaning. Is Social Security unconstitutional? Are regulatory rules unconstitutional? Is federal agricultural aid unconstitutional? Of course not, by any interpretation of the Constitution standard today, but perhaps if your ideas ever become ones adopted by the judiciary.

You have to ignore me sometimes as my ideas on how the Federal government should be run are usually about 150 years behind modern times. Although I believe to go back to a more laissez faire Federal government would be the best direction for the individual and I believe we would actually attain more freedoms this way.

[??????????]

Here's an example of your ideas of federalism run amok. If this bill ever becomes law, watch out. Since I don't know how to represent all the characters in the exact address, just go to www.thomas.loc.gov and type in We the People Act in the bill text bar. The first result is what I mean. And make sure you're sitting down.

I agree with some parts of it, on others I am somewhat iffy on. I do agree however that Roe V Wade violates the constitution because the states laws on abortion were the way to go. I believe the same for gay marriage as well. The courts are slowly usurping powers from the states in a way that many of us do not notice until those powers are gone.

[??????????]

Senator Beet, how do I go about doing that?

Regarding the "Southern Strategy." I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that we all know what we're talking about here and there's no need to harp on it further.

After all, it's been staring me right in the face all this time. Senator States' Rights? What a giveaway! Thanks for pulling my leg.

The senator part is fantasy elections.