For someone who claims not to care whether or not the most populous conservative region of the country is here or not, you're in a pretty lousy position to question anyone else's commitment to conservatism.
The South was solidly Democratic until the 60's and didn't come over to the Republican camp until you found that you could do so and still keep your big spending, big government ways.
Yeah, we were won over by that big spending socialist Goldwater. Seriously, you do realize that most of the Democrats elected down here in the South were conservative, don't you? That Robert Taft, upon his election to the Senate formed a conservative coalition with Southern Dems to fight FDR. That act infuriated the Northern GOP leadership and they did everything in their power to keep him from ever getting the GOP nomination.
So with you or without you, it doesn't matter to me. We long time conservatives don't need what passes for Southern leadership to uphold our core conservative principles.
Suspicious defensiveness noted.
Again, PC by today's standards. Would Jefferson or Davis or Lee or Jackson stand up any better from a PC standpoint? Should you not be condemning them as racists as well? Damning them for the vile bigots that they are? Or is Lincoln the only one you care about being politically correct?
No, I never said any of those men would meet today's PC standards better than Lincoln. They wouldn't. My point was that none of them should be judged by those PC standards, including Lincoln. I thought that was pretty clear.
Now put this in context. It's 1858. Two years earlier Roger Taney had declared that no black person, free or slave, was or could ever be a citizen. That blacks had no rights whatsoever that a white man was bound to respect. And in the face of that Lincoln argues that in some areas there was equality between the races, that the black man was entitled to the same basic rights as a white man. That one quote alone placed him far apart from Douglas in terms of racial viewpoint, and put him head and shoulders above your Southern leadership. Or can you show me a single quote from a single Southern leader of the time indicating that they also thought blacks were their equal in any way whatsoever? Or that blacks had any rights at all? Do that and then I'll grant that they were better than Lincoln in that area. Can you do that? Or is it Lincoln alone rather than racism that concerns you?
LMAO! When did I ever say Lincoln was alone or unique in his alleged racism, or even the most racist? I merely said (and you can't possibly not have understood this because you're an intelligent man) that if we're going to demonize certain people from American history as "racists" for holding views common to their era, we can't single out a few politically protected favorites and excuse them for holding the same views. That's very clear to anyone reading my post.
You say that, right after denouncing him as racist.
I did no such thing.
I would defy you to find a single instance where I ever criticized the racial viewpoints of the rebel leaders except in response to someone, like you, who first called Lincoln racist for his viewpoints.
I didn't call Lincoln a racist. I said that if the same idiotic PC standards were applied to him as are applied to everyone in the Confederacy, then he would be considered a racist. I made it very clear that I oppose doing that.
I've found that, consciously or unconsciously, nobody likes Animal Farm more than a Southron supporter. How else can you explain your logic behind unilateral secession? In your view, only the seceding states have rights to be respected, the remaining states have none. Only the seceding states have Constitutional protections, the remaining states have none. The seceding states can take any action they want regardless of impact, and the remaining states have no choice but to sit and take it. If ever there was a "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others" scenario then that is it.
I've never participated in those discussions so you're on your own on that one.
Oh, and for x, you're arguing that the Northeast and the West Coast would still be Republican if the GOP didn't have such heavy Southern influence. You have the cart before the horse. It has heavy Southern influence because there aren't many elected Republicans in the Northeast and West Coast. This is the result of open borders and leftist indoctrination in the schools. Besides, what exactly is it about today's Southern Republicans that would "frighten" away any so-called moderates? Did those dangerous right-wing nuts like George Allen, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Mel Martinez, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John Warner, and "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush frighten them away? As I said before, the South is holding on for its life as the last conservative population base in the country, but with blue creeping into VA and NC it won't last long. Even down here conservatism has been watered-down.
Just what is it about Southern Republicans that has frightened Yankees and Californians so much that they now vote for hardcore leftist Democrats? Should we all be like Arlen Specter and Governor Arnold and support abortion, the gay agenda, race quotas, open borders, and socialized medicine? Is that the type of "conservatism" you champion in order to win in New Jersey and Oregon?
Most of the names you mention count more among the "frightened" than the frighteners.
Just what is it about Southern Republicans that has frightened Yankees and Californians so much that they now vote for hardcore leftist Democrats?
New York State went from 12 to 3 Republicans in Congress during the Bush years, and Republicans lost control of the State Senate for the first time in over 40 years. Republicans lost both House seats from New Hampshire in 2006. The losses had to do with disaffection with President Bush, who probably counted as a Southerner if only because of his accent.
It wasn't a matter of everyone going out and voting for Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank or anyone like that. It was a smaller shift of a few percentage points that turned marginal districts from Republican to Democrat and elected Democrats who didn't speak as radically, but were willing to go along with their party leadership. And it made a big difference in how the country's run.
Look back to the 1970s and 1980s. Two large groups were leaving the Democratic Party: Southern White Evangelicals and Northern Catholics. They were both turned off by the left-liberalism of the Democratic Party. But the Southern Evangelicals managed to make the Republican Party their own, and the Northern Catholics didn't wholly make the jump. It was a cultural thing more than anything else.
In the Bush era, they felt the party just wasn't speaking to them any more. There were other factors involved as well, but more than anything else that accounts for the weakening of Republican strength in the Northeast and much of the Middle West. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the present state of things is or was written in stone.
Democrats nominate Carter in 1976 and they win every Southern state but Virginia. Even in 1980, Carter comes closer to beating Reagan in Southern states than in Northern ones. In 2004 the Democrats nominate Kerry, win New Hampshire, and lose every Southern state (and a lot of others besides).
If Southerners think a party is strongly dominated by Northerners they'll vote against it. But the same holds true of Northerners if they think a party is too Southern. Belonging and feeling left out have as much to do with it as issues or philosophy.
People are usually voting against someone or something. To get back to where we started, it's by no means certain that Northerners would vote as they did in 2008 if the South were another country, and by no means certain that Southerners would vote for the things they do now if they didn't have an easy target like the "Yankees" to vote against.
Whoa pardner, that's a pretty big cow flop you just stepped in. The ONLY reason the South voted for Goldwater was his opposition to civil rights.
Seriously, you do realize that most of the NY Democrats elected down here in the South were conservative, don't you? That Robert Taft, upon his election to the Senate formed a conservative coalition with Southern Dems to fight FDR. That act infuriated the Northern GOP leadership and they did everything in their power to keep him from ever getting the GOP nomination.
Didn't know Adlai Stevens was a conservative, but he musta been cuz them Southrons voted fer him...twice! /lmao
Or take a look at the 1940 Presidential election (FDR's third term) and tell me the South wasn't addicted to the federal teat provided by the Democrats and their southron cronies.
Of course everything changed in 1968 when dem old confederates could vote their true conscious for a real conservative...George Wallace.
And then it wasn't too many years gone by before the South could again show us their true colors once again and vote en mass for...Jimmah Carter.
Leading us to a Southron split decision for Bill Clinton and (gasp) Barry Obama.
Contrast that with a solid SIXTY year stretch of solid Republican support from the state of Kansas, Nebraska, North & South Dakota (1964 being the one exception), and you can see where the conservative heart of this country rests.