http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/22/what-does-it-say-that-most-of-the-10-poorest-states-are-republican/
What does it say that most of the 10 poorest states are Republican?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As the Republican race for the White House heats up, here's something the GOP can't be too comfortable with:
Most of the 10 poorest states in the country are Republican. Mississippi is the poorest... followed by Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama and North Carolina. And the list doesn't even include Texas, where Rick Perry is governor and one in five people lives in poverty.
In a piece on CNN.com, Roland Martin writes Republicans expect to win all 10 of these states in 2012, although President Obama won North Carolina by a slim margin in 2008 and West Virginia is usually considered a Democratic state. Martin points out that despite the red-leanings in these states, you don't hear so much from Republicans about poverty.
In fact the word "poor" has barely come up at the GOP debates thus far. The only exceptions were:
– Rick Santorum discussing welfare reform
– Ron Paul suggesting the U.S. get rid of the minimum wage
– and Mitt Romney using the phrase "energy-poor."
Overall, Republicans believe their economic agenda is the best way to get people back to work - and many in the GOP are quick to blame President Obama for the rise in the poverty rate. But how about addressing the root causes of poverty more directly - especially when millions of people in these so-called red states are suffering.
The Census Bureau reports a record $46.2 million Americans are living below the poverty line - which translates to about $22,000 a year for a family of four. Minorities are especially hard hit - with 27% of blacks living in poverty and 26% of Hispanics compared to about 10% of whites.
They could point to OK as the outlier since we didn't make the bottom 10 list (whew!). Redder than red and still doing better than the rest of the South? Once that gets out the TeaPeople will come begging our Governor to run for President!
It should be noted that the South was also poor when it was solidly Democratic. Same people, same outlook on life as when they became solidly Republican. The problem with the South is .....the South.
Oh, I'm so confused. Are republicans supposed to be the evil rich or the ignant unedumicated poor?
Why does this keep changing?
:'(
Not so hard to understand Gaspar. Republicans are the ones in charge of the governance of the Southern states that solidly support Republican Congressmen, Senators and Presidential candidates. Whether they are dumb, evil, or uneducated isn't the point. Their leadership and their policies have failed to deliver. They deserve the same esteem that you have for Obama.
FWIW my first hand experience is that they may be poor but they are not evil. The rest is debatable.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 26, 2011, 12:57:10 PM
Not so hard to understand Gaspar. Republicans are the ones in charge of the governance of the Southern states that solidly support Republican Congressmen, Senators and Presidential candidates. Whether they are dumb, evil, or uneducated isn't the point. Their leadership and their policies have failed to deliver. They deserve the same esteem that you have for Obama.
FWIW my first hand experience is that they may be poor but they are not evil. The rest is debatable.
Oh. So they should be more like the successful states like California.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 01:19:38 PM
Oh. So they should be more like the successful states like California.
The 8th largest economy in the world? At least there might be some marginal improvement in the poverty rate.
I would think that republicans would talk to their republicans about issues that affect them. One of those issues is poverty.
Yet, I watch the debates and the candidates on the stage never mention poverty. They talk about tax breaks for corporations, eliminating social security, and this story today...
Republican candidates seek Trump stamp of approval
NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump has become a must-stop for GOP candidates looking for advice or hoping to bask in the celebrity real estate mogul's star power. All the major Republican presidential hopefuls have sought an audience with Trump, just months after President Barack Obama dismissed the TV reality show personality as a "carnival barker" for raising debunked questions about Obama's citizenship.
Trump's money and fame as host of "Celebrity Apprentice" are part of the draw for GOP candidates. But Republican strategists say candidates could also learn a lot politically from Trump, whose aggressive criticism of Obama and blunt portrait of the U.S. as a nation in decline have resonated with conservative voters looking for an in-your-face challenge to the president.
"Trump created a position of playing offense and took it right to President Obama and his policies," said John McLaughlin, a GOP pollster who has worked with Trump, who flirted briefly with a presidential bid. "He speaks in plain language about jobs lost at home, and our loss of prestige overseas. He's been forthright and willing to put in a sentence what the average person feels."
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the next presidential hopeful scheduled to meet with Trump, on Monday in New York. Texas Gov. Rick Perry dined with Trump earlier this month at a fancy Manhattan restaurant. Sarah Palin, still toying with a potential presidential bid, shared pizza with Trump and his wife, Melania, in Times Square last spring. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann visited Trump's penthouse atop the Trump Tower in July.
Thump even sent a videotaped message to the Faith and Freedom Coalition forum in Florida where all the major GOP contenders spoke Thursday. "It's very important that we pick the right person. If we pick the wrong person we're going to have four more years of this nonsense in Washington. Obama must be defeated," Trump told the gathering.
Aligning themselves with Trump could help Republicans in a GOP primary because conservatives who make up the base of the party generally cheer him. But candidates risk losing moderates, independents and other general election voters turned off by Trump's crusade against Obama's birth certificate.
The candidates haven't fully embraced the issues Trump champions, like bashing the OPEC oil cartel and demanding that countries like Libya and Iraq repay the U.S. for military assistance. But they've also adopted some of Trump's other themes as well as his blunt tone. Releasing his 59-point jobs plan earlier this month, Romney echoed Trump's tough talk against China, which Trump has accused of "stealing" U.S. manufacturing jobs through currency manipulation.
"I'll clamp down on the cheaters, and China is the worst example of that," Romney said, vowing as president to order the Treasury Department to designate China a "currency manipulator." Such a designation could trigger trade sanctions against China, a major U.S. trading partner and its biggest foreign lender. Nearly all the candidates repeated a warning that America's stature is declining in the eyes of the world after Trump cast the U.S. under Obama as a global "laughingstock" and "whipping boy" in a well-received speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee conference last winter.
Perry, in a new campaign video, describes the U.S. as "the least great hope of mankind" and states, "We don't need a president who apologizes for America. I love America. " Pizza magnate Herman Cain has called the U.S. "a nation of crises." Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman says "What we're seeing playing out in America is a human tragedy."
To be sure, not all the rhetoric can be traced to Trump, who is largely echoing the sense of America under siege that has animated many conservatives. But Trump spokesman Michael Cohen, noting the candidates' tone and themes, said "I just wish they would give Mr. Trump the credit now that they're emulating his views."
Trump's reputation was in danger of taking a hit last spring, when he almost single-handedly revived questions about Obama's birthplace and demanded to see the so-called "long form" birth certificate showing the president was born in Hawaii in 1961. Until that point, the so-called "birther' controversy, suggesting Obama had been born outside the U.S. and not eligible to be president, had been promoted by fringe elements of the Republican Party.
Trump's efforts to stoke the issue succeeded in part — Obama did release his long-form birth certificate after years of refusing to do so, putting the issue to rest for good. "We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers," Obama said announcing the release of the birth certificate, a clear shot at Trump.
Obama went even further days later, using his appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner to mock Trump, who was sitting in the audience. "No one is prouder to put this birth certificate to rest than The Donald. Now he can get to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell?" Obama said. The audience laughed and cheered while Trump glowered.
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-candidates-seek-trump-stamp-approval-073249582.html
Poor Republicans don't complain as much as poor Democrats.
Poor gun-clinging bible-thumping mulleted Republicans are typically happy. They don't see the government as a form of income.
Also, the way that the census measures "Poor" is income based. This means that many of those happy old Republicans living in their South Texas retirement homes are poor, just like my parents who live under the poverty level right here in Tulsa.
Of course this is all a hilarious meme when you consider that the majority of the poor in America vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and have for decades.
What exactly is their vote getting them? More empty promises that someone else can give them success or at the very least social and economic justice?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 26, 2011, 02:27:10 PM
Of course this is all a hilarious meme when you consider that the majority of the poor in America vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and have for decades.
What exactly is their vote getting them? More empty promises that someone else can give them success or at the very least social and economic justice?
Somewhere there may be some proof of that, though it seems like bumper sticker research to me. The truth is those southern states are red. They vote republican for their governors, their senators and their congressmen and have consistently since the civil rights act of 1964 (so few people actually change their original registration which until then was overwhelmingly Democrat). And they remain poor. And they keep voting poor.
You two can dance all around the facts you want (Gaspar really? Would you buy the argument that you made? ) Its hypocritical to not admit the South is poor, republican and poorly educated. But their football is first rate.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 26, 2011, 11:43:01 AM
The problem with the South is .....the South.
Indeed.
It's always been agrarian, largely rural, and manufacturing-intensive. Very labor-intensive type work which has never paid well and never will pay well. Especially now with a lot of the old southern industries like textiles are going overseas.
Most of my family emigrated from the south and though I dearly love the cooking, the women and the countryside, I regret they haven't expanded past tourism, oil, farming and gambling. Maybe they're happier than others though.
The curious thing to me is that Oklahoma didn't make the list. Our oil?
Quote from: AquaMan on September 26, 2011, 02:38:41 PM
Somewhere there may be some proof of that, though it seems like bumper sticker research to me. The truth is those southern states are red. They vote republican for their governors, their senators and their congressmen and have consistently since the civil rights act of 1964 (so few people actually change their original registration which until then was overwhelmingly Democrat). And they remain poor. And they keep voting poor.
You two can dance all around the facts you want (Gaspar really? Would you buy the argument that you made? ) Its hypocritical to not admit the South is poor, republican and poorly educated. But their football is first rate.
You mean notorious Republican governors like Clinton, Jim Guy Tucker, Mike Beebe, Edwin Edwards, Kathleen Blanco, George Wallace, Don Siegelman, Beverly Perdue, James Hunt, Joe Manchin, Earl Tomblin, etc?
Until Kirk Fordice was elected in 1992, Miss. hadn't had a Republican in the governor's mansion in almost 120 years. Until Sonny Perdue was elected in 2002, Georgia hadn't had a Republican governor in 130 years.
That was too easy. If I had more time I'd post the representatives and senators as well.
What exactly was the criteria for labeling these "Republican" states in the first place other than slip-shod journalism, or are they simply states which voted for McCain in the last election. If that's the case, the author of the article spun a real big yarn there on trying to equate a vote for McCain with deeply entrenched poverty.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 26, 2011, 01:54:37 PM
Poor gun-clinging bible-thumping mulleted Republicans are typically happy. They don't see the government as a form of income.
No, they're typically pissed that they're left behind and think that Republicans will get them out of the mess with their pro-business attitudes. Either that or they vote Republican due to social wedge issues. You should spend some time in small town Arkansas before talking out of your donkey.
Conan, there was a sea change in the South after the Civil Rights Act. You'll note that almost immediately most Southern states shifted to voting for Republicans in Presidential elections. They didn't shift as quickly at lower levels because the officeholders there were the same good ol' boys they'd been putting in for a generation, and not a one of them voted for the CRA. As the old guard has died out and the Republicans have turned up the culture wars, they've shifted their votes more towards Republicans at the state and local levels also.
Democrats who do get elected in the South would be called Republicans anywhere else. This is large part of the reason why it's so hard for Congressional Democrats to present a solid front like the Republicans do.
Quote from: nathanm on September 26, 2011, 03:49:04 PM
No, they're typically pissed that they're left behind and think that Republicans will get them out of the mess with their pro-business attitudes. Either that or they vote Republican due to social wedge issues. You should spend some time in small town Arkansas before talking out of your donkey.
Conan, there was a sea change in the South after the Civil Rights Act. You'll note that almost immediately most Southern states shifted to voting for Republicans in Presidential elections. They didn't shift as quickly at lower levels because the officeholders there were the same good ol' boys they'd been putting in for a generation, and not a one of them voted for the CRA. As the old guard has died out and the Republicans have turned up the culture wars, they've shifted their votes more towards Republicans at the state and local levels also.
Democrats who do get elected in the South would be called Republicans anywhere else. This is large part of the reason why it's so hard for Congressional Democrats to present a solid front like the Republicans do.
Like our dear (baby) Boren. Runs as a Democrat, governs like a Southern Republican. Is Conan seriously questioning the redness of the redneck South? Blaming its reputation on shoddy journalism no less?
I think we have seen a big shift in what it means to be a Democrat and Republican in the last couple of decades. And even now I see a realignment happening with new positions on old issues being formed and voiced. I hate the labels myself for as soon as I say for instance, that I am "for this", then people automatically label you and think that you are also "against that". There is no conversation, they hear you say one thing then knowingly nod and go "oooh" and for every topic and position your pegged. I think there are a lot of people (perhaps its just my perspective ala projection) who don't feel comfortable in either party. I am an independent, and find that I am looking for the party that will , or that I can get to, evolve the most towards my over all positions.
Quote from: TheArtist on September 26, 2011, 05:59:44 PM
I think we have seen a big shift in what it means to be a Democrat and Republican in the last couple of decades. And even now I see a realignment happening with new positions on old issues being formed and voiced. I hate the labels myself for as soon as I say for instance, that I am "for this", then people automatically label you and think that you are also "against that". There is no conversation, they hear you say one thing then knowingly nod and go "oooh" and for every topic and position your pegged. I think there are a lot of people (perhaps its just my perspective ala projection) who don't feel comfortable in either party. I am an independent, and find that I am looking for the party that will , or that I can get to, evolve the most towards my over all positions.
Someone who gets it....
Quote from: TheArtist on September 26, 2011, 05:59:44 PM
I think we have seen a big shift in what it means to be a Democrat and Republican in the last couple of decades. And even now I see a realignment happening with new positions on old issues being formed and voiced. I hate the labels myself for as soon as I say for instance, that I am "for this", then people automatically label you and think that you are also "against that". There is no conversation, they hear you say one thing then knowingly nod and go "oooh" and for every topic and position your pegged. I think there are a lot of people (perhaps its just my perspective ala projection) who don't feel comfortable in either party. I am an independent, and find that I am looking for the party that will , or that I can get to, evolve the most towards my over all positions.
Good luck with that!! I have been looking for that since about 1967. Let me know if you find it! (since I suspect your ideas are more alike than different to mine right now.)
Biggest problem I see with that "other party" idea is that the vast majority will not go there because it will be so small as to be ineffective. Most will pick the least stinky alternative of the two big ones. For 30 years (until 1981) that was Republicontin. For the next 30 years it was Dummycrat.
Barring something cataclysmic happening, we are a two party system for good and all. The money, the support networks, the primary system, even the form of government at this point is optimized for two parties. IMO, we're just never going to be a parliament, we're never going to have to form coalitions to get things done. What will happen is that movements will eat parties alive from the inside (ahem, the Tea Party) and slowly the party will become partly or wholly that insurgent movement.
It's not going to keep President Dumb love from getting the boot......
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2011, 10:25:45 AM
Barring something cataclysmic happening, we are a two party system for good and all. The money, the support networks, the primary system, even the form of government at this point is optimized for two parties. IMO, we're just never going to be a parliament, we're never going to have to form coalitions to get things done. What will happen is that movements will eat parties alive from the inside (ahem, the Tea Party) and slowly the party will become partly or wholly that insurgent movement.
Is the Tea Party really any different than what the deeply liberal faction is to the Democrats?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2011, 11:20:50 AM
Is the Tea Party really any different than what the deeply liberal faction is to the Democrats?
Yes, they are.
QuoteTea Party Debate Audience Cheered Idea of Letting Uninsured Patients Die
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/)
Quote from: Townsend on September 28, 2011, 11:27:26 AM
Yes, they are.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/)
QuoteAfter a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking "Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?" to which a small number of audience members shouted "Yeah!"
A small number doesn't define a whole movement unless you also believe that Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pinko's define the liberal left.
And yes, I found the "yeah" comment by those in the audience reprehensible.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2011, 11:30:24 AM
A small number doesn't define a whole movement unless you also believe that Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pinko's define the liberal left.
And yes, I found the "yeah" comment by those in the audience reprehensible.
Either side will have their wackos. It's sad the GOP is allowing itself to be defined by theirs.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2011, 11:20:50 AM
Is the Tea Party really any different than what the deeply liberal faction is to the Democrats?
Yes in a lot of ways, actually. The one that really matters is how the GOP responds to the Tea Party's policy preferences (coherent or not), vs the way the Democrats respond to their most liberal factions' policy preferences. There's no question that the GOP is vastly more responsive to the Tea Party. All the "agendas" that American liberals push are nearly nonexistent from a policy perspective. I'm not even talking about the crazies at Earth First or PETA or whoever . . . I'm talking about mainstream groups like Planned Parenthood.
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2011, 02:39:41 PM
Yes in a lot of ways, actually. The one that really matters is how the GOP responds to the Tea Party's policy preferences (coherent or not), vs the way the Democrats respond to their most liberal factions' policy preferences. There's no question that the GOP is vastly more responsive to the Tea Party. All the "agendas" that American liberals push are nearly nonexistent from a policy perspective. I'm not even talking about the crazies at Earth First or PETA or whoever . . . I'm talking about mainstream groups like Planned Parenthood.
Orly? Shall we start with DADT and Obamacare and go from there? Just because Obamacare didn't wind up being a single-payer plan doesn't mean it wasn't a nod to libs, there was plenty in there for them to like.
Apparently the only GOP front runner not looking for Trump's approval is the governor of New Jersey.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
Orly? Shall we start with DADT and Obamacare and go from there? Just because Obamacare didn't wind up being a single-payer plan doesn't mean it wasn't a nod to libs, there was plenty in there for them to like.
Obamacare was barely a nod to libs and there's actually very little to like in there if you're a lib policy wonk and have been following even in broad strokes what works internationally. It was much more a nod to traditional Republican politics, a la Romney. And it was specifically built so it could garner bipartisan support (Romneycare wasn't controversial till Obama adopted most of it).
DADT has polled low for years, and was an easy win. Not nearly as controversial as it sounds and very much the bare minimum in terms of effort for the gay community, who would like to see a much more vigorous defense of civil unions and/or full marriage rights.