Redstate

I grew up in Michigan (and still keep in close touch with family and friends there) and I never heard of this guy. Also Michigan is very secularist state. Anyone too closely associated with religiosity or social conservatism is going to have trouble winning a statewide election. Conservatives do best in Michigan when they downplay social issues and highlight taxes and cutting government (see: John Engler, who, yes, was Pro-Life though you'd never know it from how he governed or campaigned; his signature issue was cutting back the exorbitant property tax). As I said, I've never heard of this guy, I know nothing about his positions on any issue, but he could well be an Alan Keyes sacrificial candidate since (apparently) the big name Republicans have all bowed out.

He has served as a Republican Detriot City Councilor.  Here is his bio.  And the most applicable piece of information comes here:

In 1989, Rev. Butler was elected in a city-wide vote to the Detriot City Counil; he garnered 43% of the votes in a city of 1.1 million residents.  Eighty-eight percent of Detriot's residents identified themselves as Democrats.  He was the first known Republican to hold a city council seat in the city of Detriot since before World War II.  Rev. Butler served a four-year term.

I agree that there are some serious questions about Butler's viability.  Don't get too pessimistic about this state, though.  Jane Abraham could definitely make it interesting.  She's a great fundraiser and could even out the womens' vote.

Also, the GOP's problems in Michigan don't stem from social issues.  Last year's exit polls show that 19% of Michigan voters consider "moral values" the most important issue, and they broke more than 4-1 for the President.  The difficulty is the economic policy.  A quarter of Michigan voters considered the economy/jobs the most important issue, and Kerry racked up a huge margin among them, 84-15%.  For a Republican to win a federal race, he has to a) bring those Reagan Democrats home on social issues, and b) make a clear case that he'll stand up for Michigan workers on trade agreements and the like.

An African-American pastor who works with inner city youth programs and runs a mega-church running as a Republican is progress in and of itself.  This constituency is a great growth opportunity for Republicans and having visible leaders helps.  I await more entrants into the primary, but I am glad to see people like Rev. Butler stepping forward and putting their name in the hat.

When I see it in the South.

I agree the GOP has good chances in Michigan. The state has always been a swing state, except in recent presidential elections. John Engler had no difficulty getting to the governor's mansion and control of the state legislature goes back and forth regularly. Spence Abraham however was a bit of a fluke back in 94: he rode in on the general GOP surge that year, coupled with the fact that his ethics-impaired Dem predecessor had left quite a stench in the nostrils of the voters. However he failed to impress (and in some regards managed to annoy) his constituents once in office, sibne politisc is still local, and Mr Abraham seemed not to give a hoot in you-know-where for Michigan once he started partying with the big boys in DC. I was not surprised he got the boot, especially since Ms. Stabenow had built up a loyal constituency, and not just in liberal la-la land, since she was one the architects of the state property tax reform in Engler's first term.

I do however question that a Detroit city council member with rather little repute outstate is going to be a good candidate. A pity that Engler himself is not interested!

And you are very correct about one thing, for Michigan it is the economy, stupid. The state has come a-cropper in the economic recovery (my step-mother there laughs scorn at the very notion there's any kind of recovery at all) and if things do not turn around soon Michigan politics are going to become very unstable, for everyone.

Does not a summer make, and "Foreword by Zell Miller"? - please!

All of the black Senators from blue states. Silly me. What is it, forty? Now that CMB is off the rails again, it's barely more than a supermajority of the caucus?

the number of black governors in blue states. More than the stars in the heavens I would think.

Represents the natural flow of political and societal growth.

But a black senator from Georgia or Alabama? now that would be a siesmic event.

Why there are so many.

Can you tell me which state had the first black governor?  Hint--its not a Blue State.

The only southern State to have fought the civil war on the principle of States rights.

a few denizens of the Old Dominion at least.  Of course, can you tell me which Southern State had the most slaves in 1860 (hint, according to you, it fought the war solely over states rights).

In any event, not to drag this out, race in the South ain't the issue you think it is.

The Left has to keep muttering "Southern Strategy" to itself as a protective mantra, lest they realize why they really lost the South.

North Carolina has had a black speaker of the House in the last ten years (Dan Blue).  Charlotte, the largest city in North Carolina, and a fairly conservative city (as far as large cities go), has had a black mayor in the last fifteen years (Harvey Gantt).  North Carolina currently has three black Congressmen (in fairness, gerrymandering created those Congressional seats).  There currently is a an African American female sitting on the N.C. Court of Appeals (the judges are elected in statewide elections).

Now, I realize this isn't perfect success, but it does show that Southern whites will vote for African American candidates.

Of course, they killed themselves in the Southen congressional delegations by gerrymandering African American majority districts to ensure African American congressmen.

I realize the retort Blue State will throw at this:  yea, well that proves African Americans can't win in the South.  No, it proves that liberal African Americans specializing in racial politics can't win straight-up in the South.  I actually think moderate and conservative African Americans could do (and have done) quite well in the South, as they can build a coalition.

Democratic black senators:

2.  first one in 1992 in Illionois (Braun).  Second in 2004, also in Illinois (Obama).

Republican black senators:

Edward Brooke (R-MA in 1966 for two terms).

Hiram Rhoades Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, both from Mississippi, c.1870.

Both parties have nominated black candidates for statewide office several times, but few have won (sacrificial lambs like Alan Keyes notwithstanding).

The only governor I know of was Douglas Wilder.  Has either party nominated a black candidate for governor in a race that was competitive?  Someone told me that the GOP actually did that in CA, but I think they are mistaken, for I know of none.  Maybe the state was mixed up.  Any info?

In North Carolina, I do not believe we have had any black nominees for Governor who were serious candidates.  Dan Blue ( a former Speaker of the NC House) did run for Senate and was a serious candidate, though he lost to Erskine Bowles in the primaries.  Harvey Gantt, the former mayor of Charlotte, ran for Senate against Jesse Helms twice and lost (though his vote totals were roughly comparable to white Democrats who had run against Helms and lost.

I am not as familiar with African American candidates outside of NC.

Who was ahead in the polls in the 1990 Senate race until Jesse Helms ran the "White Hands" ad.

...the ad which was just as tasteful as the ad that was run against Bush in 2000 about the black man in Texas who was dragged to death behind a pick-up truck.  Yes, the one that implied Bush's culpability in that heinous crime because he did not sign a hate crimes bill.  Well, at least the Helm's ad had some measure of truth to it, even if it was not in the best taste.

There are a lot of possibilities for statewide African-American Republican candidates in 2006. For Gov, J.C. Watts in OK, Swann in PA and Blackwell in OH.  For Sen, Steele in MD and Butler in MI.  That's probably the most widespread field of African-American Republicans running for high level office in my lifetime.

You snipe at remarks about the Southern Strategy all the time.  Are you contending that there wasn't one, or that it wasn't effective, or are you just saying it's no longer a Republican strategy?

(1) It didn't mean what your side says it meant at the time.

(2) However, since Kevin Phillips came up with it and Richard Nixon implemented it, I fully suspect they were happy to get whatever kind of votes they could get. I would further submit that at the time there were probably plenty of Southerners, though I would defy you to prove a majority, who switched sides over black civil rights.

(3) I take issue, however, with the perception that the South went Republican over civil rights, at least as I use the term. Guns; war; abortion; crime; secularism: There are all sorts of reasons why the Democrats of 1968 and beyond forfeited any claim to the South, and I'd respectfully submit that the only people who think that race was THE OVERRIDING REASON are the ones who lost the South, not (a) Republicans or (b) Southerners.

(4) I further assert that the number of present Southerners who is at war with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is vanishingly small. So, yes, I take issue with the common perception that your side of the aisle is bleeding Party members in the fastest growing region due to intractable racism. Y'all've made enough beds to pick where you're sleeping; race is, at most, one of those.

...probably the largest slate of statewide African-Americans offered by one party ever.  Two would-be-Senators and three potential governors, two from large swing states?  Yeah, I think we take the cake on that one.  of course, I do hope they win their respective primaries, should they all run.  I believe in diversity to represent varying viewpoints and to bring different perpectives to public office, not as a matter of course or to meet a government guilt-driven quota.

1. What did it mean compared to now?
   
2. Not sure how I would prove a majority.  But I think we agree at the time there were a large volume of switches at least in large part on this issue.  Race certainly helped distance the national Democratic party from the South, which in turn fueled the alienation of other issues.  I would look at the Thurmond-Goldwater-Wallace voters and hazard a guess most of them were close to single issue voters.
   
3. Agree.  The South did not go Republican exclusively because of race.  In fact, it becomes a weaker issue each election, thankfully.  I think Republicans blew up the dam on the race issue, but we've never repaired the breach because of the issues you name, in addition to race.
   
4. Agree.  But I think it remains very present in the background noise of redstate-bluestate, urban-rural, centralization-federalism dichotomies.  I'm related to plenty of real, fire-breathing modern day Southern racists.  But it's not the same racism of 30 years ago, no question.  I certainly wouldn't qualify it with at most.  But I also think it falls well behind some of the other issues you mentioned.

Are we close to agreement, or am I still off your mark?

I'll re-emphasize the fact that guns, abortion, secularism, and now gay marriage have hurt Democrats more than race as long as I can remember (which is only about a decade, maybe two).

And my experience has been that racial conscienceness is not noticeably different in the North and South.

(1) Law and Order, which to some minds meant race, and which to some minds just meant law and order. And a lot of the things I mentioned.

(2) Sure; but not sure about the Goldwater ones.

(3) I think the Democrats did it with the convention in 1968, then demolished the rubble in '72. I've known way too many former Democrats who point to those years. But we could compare anecdotal data all day long.

(4) I'm related to some real pieces of work myself. I'm not sure it's as much in the background as you think, but either of us could play that game all day long.

Like I said, probably close enough. Some disagreement, as I expected, but pretty close. This, incidentally, is why I've said elsewhere that I never doubted that you argue in good faith.

you mean we dumb hicks had the wool pulled over our eyes by a little 'ol TV ad?  Shazam!  If only there were liberals to save us from our credulity.

By the way my canny canine friend, Helms was often been behind his opponent in polls prior to the election, be they white or black.  The polls almost always underpolled Helms' support  and overpolled his opponents support.

...no.  I'm saying the ad motivated white guys who thought black people were after their jobs to get to the polls and vote "Helms", and this helped push him over the finish line.  I know it's in vogue these days among many conservatives to pretend nobody in the south cares about race any more (or ever did?), but the "If I had known, I would have picked my own cotton" bumper sticker on my brother-in-law's beer fridge says otherwise.  Hey, he himself says he's not racist.  He just doesn't care for black people.

Me, I'm looking forward to the day when same-sex marriage is legal in every state and conservative Republicans earnestly tell me that gay rights weren't really a big issue in solidifying the GOP's hold on the south around the turn of the 21st century.  That will be similarly entertaining.

to most Southeners.  Guns, abortion, and secularization are issues that liberals seem to like to ignore in their analysis.  Fine by me.  But it hurts liberals' claim to be in a reality-based community.

I think the racial angle is emphasized because it is the most nefarious wind in the political currents the Republicans have tacked to sail their way to the top.  But other currents have surpassed it in strength.

(sorry for the really baaad metaphor)

Re: to most Southeners,  Guns, abortion, and secularization are issues that liberals seem to like to ignore in their analysis.

Abortion is an issue on which the electorate is fairly evenly split. Is there any evidence that Southerners as a whole are more pro-Life and by significant numbers? (And maybe more importantly that they are sincerely so? There are plenty of people who say they are pro-Life but believe abortion should be legal under three circumstances: medical necessity, rape, and their own family's circumstance, whatever it may be.)

As for guns, the Democrats have labored mightily to dispell this onus. Yet they are still pereceived as gun-banners even if the candidates swear on a stack of Bibles they aren't and own half an arsenal themselves. (Something smiliar happens with gay marriage. Last year Kerry's and Bush's positions were quite similar: no gay marriage but civil unions OK; yet Kerry got tagged as a gay marriage supporter.)

And secularization is a hard one. It means different things to different people.

And by what metric do you say those are "bigger" than race?  Even looking at polls probably won't give you a good answer on this question, because of southerners' long history of sublimating the race issue into things like "heritage", "states' rights", "law and order", and so on.  Race is not dealt with honestly by many southerners just as the Holocaust is not dealt with honestly by many Germans.  It is simply too painful, too complex, and too seemingly insurmountable a problem for many to deal with directly, even if it was our distant ancestors who committed the very worst atrocities.

I'm not arguing that race necessarily is a bigger issue at the polls than religion (though I have a feeling it is bigger than guns).  I'm just wondering how one would actually rank these things, given our social conditioning to not be openly racist, but to still frequently view things through the lens of skin color.  There is no shame in the south in saying you are religious, or you like guns.

Read this ...

Mainly from growing up in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  We had some vicious race riots which we learn about in school.  We still have debates on reparations, etc.  And I can see in some of the "greatest generation" the underlying racial prejudices.  But after spending time in Boston and DC, I'd say race is dealt with much better in the South overall.  Jesse Jackson style race baiting is slapped down in most of the South (see David Duke campaign).

It's mostly a combination of personal experience with wider trends.  No one makes appeals that have racial undertones even.  The closest is the anti-immigrant fervor that is starting to rumble.  But that is not directed toward African-Americans.  In fact, the major African-American outreach by the RNC and the appearence of Southern conservative African-American leaders should totally end this discussion in the next 5-10 years.  When a Herman Cain or J.C. Watts wins a statewide election, we can definitely say that Southerners are willing to vote for the best candidate (i.e. conservative in the South) regardless of race.