Redstate

If we were running a traditional white male for the senate, this type of thing might backfire. I don't see how this could possibly backfire on Michael Steele in Maryland. Perhaps you can elaborate because right now, I just can't fathom it.

I think Steele can get a large percentage of the black vote but I don't think these types of appeals will be terribly effective. I'm not against giving Dems a dose of their own medicine but I just don't think this type of appeal will work well.

Like Robert Byrd, the well-known Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard?

Oh, that's right, he's a Democrat.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

JFK and LBJ couldn't have gotten anything done without the overwhelming support of Republicans. You can't sever the "D" from George Wallace's name. Especially not while you have the Grand Cyclops, Robert Byrd, still in your senate caucus!

"poor history"

Isn't that an interesting choice of words. When talking about Republicans it's "racist" or "hate" but with regard to democrats, why it's merely a "poor history".

Strom Thurmond can't be mentioned without mentioning that he was segregationist, in as derisive a manner as possible. However, if ever mentioned at all, Byrd's former leadership in the KKK is done so in a practically flattering way, along the lines of "look how far he's come."

Psh. Double talk is the hallmark of all liberals, purple or otherwise.

absentee

In 1968 they created the Dixiecrat Party.
In 1972 Nixon won - across the board - because the Democrats nominated McGovern.
In 1976 Carter split the South. [CORRECTION: He won it.]
In 1980 Reagan won - across the board - because he was Ronald Reagan, and because the Democrats nominated Carter.
In 1984 Reagan won - across the board - because he was Ronald Reagan, and because the Democrats nominated Mondale.
In 1988 George HFW Bush won - across the board - because the Democrats nominated Dukakis.
In 1992 Clinton split the South.
In 1996 Clinton split the South.
It wasn't until 2000 that the South appeared as a voting block that wasn't part of a rather large sweep against a liberal Democrat. It should be also noted that this took place after several decades of improved racial relations both in the country in general and the South in particular.

So precisely when did all these Southern Democrats become Republicans? If you could put together a graph of percentages of GOP/Democratic officeholders in the South for the last forty years - broken down by state, of course - that would be spiff. Because I'd hate to see somebody try a peddle an urban myth here.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Your grasp of political history is a bit off. That's understandable because it has been repeated so many times that many believe it is true. Look at the data on Presidential elections, partisan control of state legislatures, and partisan make-up of federal delegations. I'll take one example which is similar to most of the South: Georgia.

In 1992, Democrats still controlled the state legislature, the Governorship, and both Senate seats as well as sending an 8-1 delegation to the House of Representatives. In 1994, many of those seats flipped. But it wasn't until 2004 that both Senate seats and the Governorship were in Republican hands. In fact, Governor Purdue's election in 2000 was the first Republican since the 1870s.

This pattern is repeated across the South. The South was Democratic in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s. Some parts still are (LA, WV, and AR). Alabama elected George Wallace as Governor in the 1980s as a Democrat. WV continually sends the only KKK member to Washington and he is a Democrat. The filibuster of the Civil Rights Act was done by Democrats.

I don't say all this to absolve Republicans of some untoward politics, but it is sad that history has been so distorted as to the Democratic efforts to stall Civil Rights. Those Democrats, for the most part, never changed parties. They finally died off and younger Southerners were Republicans because they believed in small government, the 2nd amendment, prayer in school, and a host of other issues.

If you have evidence of a major "switchover" of racist Democrats in the South, please provide it. But it seems that conclusion is based a very cursory look at Presidential elections.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I'll just make one correction: Perdue is the name of the Georgia governor (Sonny Perdue), and the chicken producer; Purdue is the name of the land-grant state university in Indiana (named after its founder, John Purdue).

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

will be something more than "political games" (as Moe put it) and will explain which Democratic programs have failed and in what way, and go on to outline the successful Republican legislation that has corrected these flaws and describe the future steps Republicans plan to take to further improve the situation.

Can be from the Democrats where they explain what Republican policies are attacking minorities and in what way, and go on to outline the successful Democrat legislation that has corrected these flaws and describe the future steps Democrats plan to take to further improve the situation.

And the one after that can be from the democrats where they explain what Republican defense strategies have failed and in what way, and go on to outline the successful Democrat legislation that has corrected those flaws and describe the future steps Democrats plan to take to protect America.

And after that (fill in with Katrina related content)

And after that ....

Oh wait. It's a political ad. Not a policy statement. Your bad.

absentee

that you apparently think these "political games" are going to sway voters but a more nuanced and factual description of past actions and future plans won't work. If you have such a low opinion of the people you're trying to convince to vote for you, I submit you're not gonna have much luck getting their vote.

Is it not so telling that you think political advertisements are the only way to reach voters? Just a bunch of TV watching, Radio listening bums? If you have such a low opinion of voters, I submit you're wasting your time debating people at a political blog.

absentee

Millions upon millions of people, including voters of all backgrounds, watch TV. LOL.

What, you want to advertise on hike-and-bike trails? Nooo...then you'd complain about the visual pollution and spoiling of your natural habitat. LOL

Puhleeze...go back to the gaggle of intellectual atrophied zombies at Kos where you belong. LOL

Evidently you aren't following me.

absentee

:-)

No worries!

absentee

with that of the GOP. Or perhaps you can tell me, in detail, about the many other ways in which the GOP is reaching out to voters, and specifically the African-American community.

By the way, I think people who watch TV (in moderation) and listen to radio are generally informed and concerned citizens. Good to know you call them bums.

No no, I'm not calling them bums. I am, however, going to clarify, since the consensus seems to be that I'm not clear.

I was saying that saying that they only do those things is saying they are bums. I watch TV, what are you crazy? Panthers football? 24? Prison Break? Blossom?!

Ok, not blossom.

Anyway, my whole point was that it seemed you were implying that this ad, clearly meant as evocative and provocative, was a coverup of a lack of real facts. I'm simply making the case that there is a place for this ad, particularly in the current political landscape, and especially considering that democrats often base entire campaigns on evocative imagery as opposed to enumerated facts.

Psh. Blossom. What's that about?
absentee

Sorry, I got upset. Here's what I was trying to get across: Republicans run ad, I say ad could be better, you say it's just a political ad and why focus on ad, I say because that's what they did, was run an ad. As long as we're discussing the ad, which is what the story is about, I think it could have been more policy-based. If you want to talk about other GOP outreach efforts to the African-American community, I'm all ears.

I guess there's a place for ads like this in the political landscape but taken on its own I don't think it'll have the desired impact, for reasons explained above.

I didn't intend to say why focus on the ad. I intended to say, why must the ad meet the expectations you were laying out.

I do think, however, that these days people tend to be influenced by provocative imagery to a greater extent than perhaps we all take into account. This would include us. In fact, it is that susceptibility to such influence that makes press bias so alarming.

In a recent discussion with my brother, we came to the half-hearted conclusion that perhaps a few more appeals to emotion and other approaches that we may otherwise find useless, if not downright fallacious, may need to become part of the Republican advertising arsenal. "Documentaries" like the tripe produced by Michael Moore and that travesty called Loose Change, diaries like half those at DailyKos, and the entire website and blog-culture exemplified by Americablog indicate that such appeals and methods can be effective.

And so, what good to make a reasoned argument if the person is so afflicted by the left's emotional manipulation that they are no longer open to reasoned argument? Perhaps the only reasonable course is to soften their resolve with counter-emotional appeals?

Maybe not. Maybe it's sinking to the same level. But with so much at stake, I don't discount the notion.
absentee

I do think, however, that these days people tend to be influenced by provocative imagery to a greater extent than perhaps we all take into account. This would include us. In fact, it is that susceptibility to such influence that makes press bias so alarming.

I don't know if that was always true or if this is just an example of the dumbing down of America.

If you talk to OLD black people, even poor OLD black people you
might be surprised at how much more knowledgeable and insightful than younger people. Its like we lost two whole generations.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Apparently Steele agrees with me =) Good for him for denouncing the ad.

Why do you denounce the ad?

I said I thought it should be more policy-based. But if I had denounced it, I might have said something like, oh, I dunno: "Although they may have had good intentions, there is no room for this kind of slash-and-burn partisan politics... This is exactly the kind of attack politics Marylanders are sick of... "

Is Steele being bizarre?

to my initial question, which you neatly sidestepped, which political ads meet the standards which you are so valiantly holding this one to?

plenty of Steele's campaign ads meet these basic standards. I haven't seen them or read transcripts so I don't know but I'm happy to take his word for it.

Michael Steele's ads are here. The puppy one and the Simmons one are worth viewing to see what people are talking about.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

You seem to be saying that political ads ought to be descriptions of the policy positions of one side and explanations of why the policy positions of the other side are bad. Is that what you are saying?

If so, your disagreement is with 99.9% of all the political ads out there, including the Democratic ones.

I don't see what is wrong with factual ads like this one. Many people, including many African-Americans, have been tricked into thinking that the positions of the two parties on race are the opposite of what they are. It's long overdue for the GOP to start correcting some of the lies which have been spread.

when he says "there is no room for this kind of slash-and-burn partisan politics... This is exactly the kind of attack politics Marylanders are sick of..." May I ask why you disagree?

Isn't the whole "tricked into thinking that the positions of the two parties on race are the opposite of what they are" the Republican equivalent of the "What's the matter with Kansas" argument? I think it's kinda demeaning to voters in both cases.

I did not ask you what someone else thinks or says. I asked you what you think. (Why do liberals always resort to this ploy?)

I think I made it excruciatingly clear what I think; read the entire thread, and if you're still uncertain I'll be happy to answer any specific question.

Short version: I think the ad could have been more policy-based, and as presented was likely counter-productive. As it turns out, Steele apparently agrees with this assessment of the ad.

Your concern for and committment to the best interests of the Republican party are a matter of record.

Color me unsurprised that you'll see only what you want to see. Color me further unsurprised that Steele appears to have a much better understanding than do you of what is in the best interests of the Republican party.

Because I thought the problem was that an overrepresentative proportion of African Americans were still poor and undereducated - after HOW MANY YEARS OF THE WELFARE STATE? Oh, and Affirmative Action, too, which while I despise as a bigoted, racist and entirely unconstitutional public policy, was actually instituted to help African Americans by ANOTHER REPUBLICAN - NIXON!

Democrats have a terrible history on race. Honestly, there is much more to be absolutely ashamed of then to really brag about.

I can't wait to see the Democrats try to fire back. It's going to be a very weak and pathetic attempt if they do. LOL

I was being sarcastic.

absentee

I got carried away. I guess I was reading too fast to pickup on the subtle sarcasm. Please forgive the friendly fire! :-)

I think this ad is great. It gives voice to a lot of themes Mfume skirted around during his campaign, it answers the question of why there are no black Democrat senators, it answers the question of why Mfume could not win in heavily white Democrat areas, it answers the question of why a black man can be a Republican lieutenant governor and Senatorial candidate and have white staffers in Democrat campaigns refer to him as an oreo.

Steele isn't going to lose any votes with this. He might gain some and he might decrease turnout.

I think Republicans have addressed a lot of those issues by reducing taxes, encouraging school choice, etc.

Note first that this is not the Steele campaign running this ad. Second, I am quite unimpressed with Cardin's strategy so far: Steele = Bush, vote against Bush. And if you are looking for policy debate, Cardin is not serving much of it. Steele's ads are some of the best non-partisan ones I've ever seen. They don't stake out a lot of controversial ground, but he emphasizes ending earmarks and fighting corruption. Those are popular, non-partisan themes that he will probably follow up on so as to remain popular in Maryland. And his policy positions are what have won over Simmons and a slew of other black leaders. His message on educational opportunity and personal responsibility is resonating. I hope they do follow up with ads talking about school choice, equal opportunity, and education. And it wouldn't surprise me if they do.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

.

I live in communist Montgomery County, MD and have talked with my Dem neighbors before the race. They were pulling for Mfume because they thought against Cardin, Steele might be able to pull a large percentage of the black vote hurting both the Senate race and also the Gov race against Ehrlich.

you nailed it

It may be in the immediate interests of Steele not to have this ad played, although I don't see how. But overall, its not in the best interests of the GOP to allow the myth of the racist Republican party to go unchallenged.

The fact that the lefties here are anxious to see this type of ad shut down should tell you something.

>>It may be in the immediate interests of Steele not to have this ad played,

I said it was in his interests to distance himself from it. I am rather hoping they don't stop the ad, but it is good for Steele to request that they do.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

The ad itself is misleading because the vast majority of people who identified with the Democratic Party when the Klan and etc. were in their heydey were social conservatives. The majority of those conservatives (regionally speaking) now identify, or at least vote, Republican. This trend began in 1965 and was first evident nationally in 1972 (Nixon's southern strategy.) There are a couple of counterexamples still in office (Robert Byrd) but these are exceptions.

What you are actually saying is that racist conservatives were Democrats and non-racist conservatives are Republicans. A hypothesis that fits the above facts would be that conservative vote Republican, unless they are racist in which case they vote Democratic. Once the Democrats abandoned their racism (Jim Crow, etc), the conservative voters had no reason to vote Democratic so they voted on other issues (guns, religion, abortion, military). I don't think this overall theory is correct but it is just as plausible as "racists became Republican so Republicans are racist." I think it would behoove history to point out that Wallace and other racists were Democrats. They may not be current day Democrats, but there is no reason to think they would be current day Republicans either. The same could be said of MLK Jr. who identified as a Republican because he supported Eisenhower. He may not be a present day R, but he may not be a present day D. At the time, he called himself a Republican... why should that be forgotten in the history of race relations?

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

of The South. It isn't that Southerners did some summing up of positions on various issues and became Democrats rather than Republicans; until the mid-sixties Southerners weren't just "not Republicans," they hated Republicans and had so in their very bones for a century. It was inconceivable for a White Southerner to be a Republican, since most Southerners in that time could still rattle off great-or g/great - granddaddy's company, regiment, division, corps, and army in the Provisional Army of the Confederate States, and many knew just where in Virginia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, or wherever that ancestor was planted - at least those that weren't in still-unmarked mass graves.

The last generation that came to voting age in that incarnation of The South is now in their late fifties, early sixties and there has been massive immigration to The South since the phenomena began in the late Fifties. Atlanta, then the dominant city in The South, only reached a population of one million around 1960, and then only with a very expansive rendering of its suburban area.

FDR was Godlike in The South and while he said nice things about Black civil rights was content to leave The South's peculiar institution, segregation, pretty much alone, as was Truman except with regard to the armed forces. What these two Presidents did do, and Eisenhower continued, with regard to The South was begin the transfer of massive amounts of federal money there for the first time ever. Some New Deal make-work job was the first time many, in rural areas most, Southerners had ever seen a paycheck. Then massive defense spending and the beginnings of industrialization began the move away from the rural, xenophobic society that The South had been for the century since the Civil War.

Almost all White Southerners were Democrats and they came in all stripes from New Deal liberals, not many of those, but lots of opinion makers fit that tag, to many, many Tom Watson leaning populists, to religious conservatives, and, yes, to racists out and out.

The first chink in the Solid South armor was the '64 Goldwater campaign, and there is no doubt in my mind that support for Goldwater was largely predicated on his opposition to civil rights legislation. Nixon's Southern Strategy perpetuated the chink, but he remained too liberal on civil rights and the racist wing of the Southern res publica bolted to Wallace. Wallace carefully chose his coded language, but Southerners knew what a vote for Wallace signified. 1972 was an aberration because of the unpalatibility of McGovern to almost everyone in the Country. I would posit that Southerners voted for Carter because he was a Southerner. Think back to all the talk about "the first Southern candidate/president since ..." that was around in those days. By the time you get to 1980, The South was a very different world; the civil rights wars and segregation are behind it, de jure if not de facto. The South was much more urban, much wealthier, and there had been tremendous immigration from other parts of the country by people not innured to The South's racial politics. Likewise, the last generation of Whites that came to voting age in the segregated past was entering its thirties, had spouses, kids, mortgages and probably a wage job in town or even in the growing cities. The old rural xenophobia was fading away. Then began the turn away from the Democrat Old Boys as it became tolerable if not wholly acceptable for a brand name politician to become a Republican.

Bill Clinton's campaign was every bit as much a Southern Strategy as was Nixon's but the motivations were different. The votes were there and The South would still vote for a Southerner qua Southerner. It worked - twice, but his bad behavior repulsed socially conservative Southerners without regard to their heritage and along with Gingrich's ascendency, I posit that the stage was then set for The South to finally, but not fully, end its blind allegiance to the Democrat Party at the state and local level.

I well understand that race still sits at the base of much of Southern political life, but it is now about who gets how much of they pie, not whether Blacks get any of the pie. To sum up, it is not susceptible to a simple or linear analysis. Race may have underlain The South's history, but there is much more to that history than race, and that history with all its convolutions has driven The South's transformation away from the Solid South.
In Vino Veritas

It was exploited like disabled drug addicted stepchild by the dems after 1963 and many blacks still are so exploited by the dem party.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

the world in which I started grade school in 1955 in rural Georgia had ceased to exist by the time I graduated high school in 1967. Not all of that was a good thing, but most of it was.

In Vino Veritas

In the process of shaking off segregation and jim crow, the 60s libs managed to undermine many of the values shared by blacks and whites that made us a good and great country that beat Hitler, liberated Europe, and marvelled the world with our economic vitality.

The fact is that the 60s libs try and usurp credit for the civil rights movement from the Black baptist preachers that made it happen.

The proble is that we when we outlawed legal segregation we also kicked the black man out the house, replaced him with uncle sam and and went on a guilt trip.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

The majority of those conservatives (regionally speaking) now identify, or at least vote, Republican. This trend began in 1965 and was first evident nationally in 1972 (Nixon's southern strategy.)

I'd like to see you produce some data to substantiate this claim. Because all the evidence is that southern Democrats kept voting for Democrats (at all levels below president) for another thirty years after 1965.

.. as though our political parties are unchanging entities whose positions and supporters have remained static over decades.

The only person I can see making that claim here is you, with your insinuation that the Southerners voting Republican today are the exact same people who were voting Democrat back in the sixties.