Posted on 10/29/2007 4:03:12 PM PDT by neverdem
I don’t know what to make of the article neverdem, are they saying that Jindal’s victory is a repudiation of the “Southern Strategy” or that the Republican Party has abandoned that strategy or what?
Read the last paragraph again, please.
Notice when Wikipedia changed the color scheme indicating which party in which state got the electoral votes. If you didn't know better you would think it was 1980 that the drive by media made the switch from traditional GOP blue to the red of traditional pinkos in the Cold War. The drive by media made actually made the switch in 2000. Don't trust Wikipedia on anything political.
Excepting Carter's 1976 southern win, the South has been strong GOP Presidential territory ever since.
The first bolded string means the link in the article to the 1976 electoral map in which Georgia was colored red.
The bolded GOP means the link to the 1980 electoral map in which Georgia was colored blue.
I don’t get this article at all. You can’t compare someone from India to an American negro. It’s apples and oranges, unless you see them all as “darkies.” And if anything, it seems that greater representation was a cynical byproduct of a cynical strategy. Are we supposed to celebrate this? Seems like politics at its most vile to me. Brings to mind that unfortunate scar on Reagan’s record...opening his campaign with wink and a nod to the racists.
I also find the article incoherent. Bobby Jindal was a serious candidate in the ‘03 gubernatorial election. Blanco defeated him through a blatant tribal rather than racial appeal per se. Her campaign spots always gave her full name—Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and dropped dark hints as to his religion. He only fell short by a few and easily won a congressional seat shortly thereafter.
Well, we all know what happened in the summer of ‘05. Blanco had a meltdown, Nagin threw tantrums and Louisianans got their noses rubbed in their shortcomings with all the world watching. Jindal, on the other hand, rose to the occasion in spades and did everything a mere congressman could for his state.
Louisiana decided that after sixty-odd years they could no longer afford “colorful” characters in Baton Rouge and decided to go against tradition.
Here’s hoping Bobby’s the face of a new Republican leadership. Lord knows we could use one.
Start again with the first paragraph. One of the Justice Brothers likes to use the term people of color in distinction to just Caucasians.
And if anything, it seems that greater representation was a cynical byproduct of a cynical strategy. Are we supposed to celebrate this? Seems like politics at its most vile to me.
Nixon and Reagan brought their Democrats into camp on social and security issues. First was anti-Communism and opposition to the antiwar movement tearing Democrats apart. Second was law-and-order, which meant standing up to urban rioters and campus radicals. Third was social conservatism, defending traditional values in the moral and cultural revolution of the 1960s.
On civil rights, the Nixon position was desegregation, yes, social engineering, no. Nixon integrated the Southern schools that had been 90 percent segregated when LBJ went home. While opposing busing for racial balance, Nixon grudgingly obeyed the court orders.
Robert Putnam: Diversity Is Our Destruction
Robert Putnam's paper, "E Pluribus Unum..." which I linked, is quite instructive, and he's a liberal from Harvard.
Gov Jindal was on Fox News Sunday, he seems well informed, not the lightening rod type, reform minded.
He mentioned School Vouchers, low taxes stimulating economic growth etc. I liked him, he is a tad by the book though.
Gov Jindal will be a featured speaker at the RNC convention in Minneapolis in 2008, he is a rising star to be sure.
Check the first link in comment# 7 and the text below it for a description of what was in the Southern Strategy.
As for PJB, he's just wrong. He worked for Nixon, didn't he? So maybe that's his motive for lying. But the words of the actual Nixon campaign guy speak for themselves.
Again, the article is very strange. It seems to be celebrating and rationalizing what was a cynical, sick ploy.
Were you aware of what was going on in the 1960's, or did you read about it after the fact?
Is this a misquote?
“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”[3]
Reference 3. ^ Boyd, James (May 17, 1970) "Nixon's Southern strategy: 'It's All in the Charts'". New York Times. p. 215.
Page 215 of the NY Times makes no sense to me. How old are you, if I may ask?
Are Senate Offices Lying To You? - -- Some are claiming there is no Veterans Disarmament Act! Check the links in the excerpt at least. It's scary.
Health Sector Puts Its Money on Democrats
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
This article wasn’t what I expected by the title... But I will promise this: Bobby Jindal will be a very formidable presidential candidate in 8 years. If he can transform Louisiana the way I expect him to, there may be no stopping him.
“Republicans have worked to maximize black congressional representation by creating black-majority congressional districts.”
Bull. Its called gerrymandering and it was never done to “maximize black congressional representation”. Say you have 4 congressional districts with blacks comprising a large minority in each district. In order to avoid having to answer to this minority constituency in each district, the politicos redefine the districts so that they have one solid black district and 3 solid white districts. 3 votes to 1 beats 4 maybe votes in any legislature. Same goes for electoral politics. 3 solid white votes out of 4 beats 4 votes that have to appeal to black issues come election time in any election. Its not just a race based strategy though. Anytime you know the voting patterns of a given area, you can redefine the districts so you “maximize” the amount of districts that vote in your party’s favor. Both parties do this but to say that anyone has ever done this to “maximise black congressional representation” is selling you a load of crap.
If he had won in 'o3" and had been in charge with Katrina, he might be contending for the VP spot on the Republican ticket. As it is, at age 36 he has twenty years to make his mark on the national consciousness. As it is, his person record is far more impressive than Obama's and he is far more authentically American.
The effect, of course, to do this. The natural result of concentrating people of a certain type in a district is to produce congressmen with the same background. Historically, Catholic congressmen come from Catholic districts; ditto, Mormons and Jews. Generally, the representative is representative of the voters.
In a way I’m glad he didn’t win in 03, too much success to fast can cause problems like locking thinking into one pattern that is repeated over and over again.
He has a really hard job just making LA a functioning govt, and dealing with Katrina’s damage.
But now, if he is successful, the narrative will be “Young Minority GOPer cleans up a Democratic Mess in LA”
And that is one heck of a great narrative!
The Katrina cleanup he can manage, because that means working more efficiently a system that ought to be working better. Cleaning up LA politics on the other hand, is a job for Heracles. Rats and Dims are equally culpable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.