MS/AL GOP Primary

Drudge has Romney leading in both according to the 5 pm exits. That is hard to square with the actual reporting on the exits - 80% evangelical vote:

Around 8 in 10 Mississippians participating in Tuesday's contest were white evangelical or born-again Christians, the largest share measured in any state so far. Those same voters accounted for nearly three-quarters of those surveyed in Alabama, a proportion reached previously only in Tennessee and Oklahoma.

In South Carolina, Newt and Santorum carried 2/3 of the evangelical vote. Assuming an even split, Romney has to carry 2/3 of non- evangelicals to win. Seems far fetched.

< The Bully Pulpit | Bolivia's President Defends Right to Chew Coca >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The "Drudge Primary" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Addison on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    The "Drudge Primary" is total nonsense. I think he just lets all visitors to the Drudge Report with IPs based in the selected state(s) vote in a poll. Ron Paul beat everyone by 10+% in all the early states (IIRC), according to the "Drudge Primary". Just a web poll on a site that is majorly pro-Romney and somewhat pro-Paul.

    Is there any religious doctrine (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:14:43 PM EST
    in AL or MS that trumps beating Obama?  I think not. They are not messing around.

    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 05:55:20 AM EST
    and applaud the GOP death wish. Well done Ricky!

    Do MS/AL evangelicals (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    actually trust Catholics?  Or Mormons?  Consider either of them to be "Christian" churches or their members to be actual "Christians"?  

    Not really (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    but it's probably a lesser of two evils kind of thing since there's no "evangelical". James Dobson has been pushing Santorum. Newt might win both of these states. He's probably insane enough.

    But if we're using a "religious Test" (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:05:58 PM EST
    (contrary to Article VI, para. 3, clause 2 of the Constitution) to pick our President, then isn't Newt worse, because he was a Southern Baptist and converted to become a Catholic?  I ask, as an interested outsider to that entire strange world.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    no he wouldn't be worse because I don't think most of them will think that he's really a practicing Catholic. I don't think he's a serious Catholic. Do you? Whereas Santorum as an Opus Dei Catholic is going to kind of weird to them and Romney as a Mormon, well, they think he's a cult member.

    Newt has bounced around a bit (none / 0) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:09:05 PM EST
    in the organized religion department, Lutheran, Baptist and, now, Catholic.  Maybe, the historian's history will mollify the concerns of the Evangelicals--although the number three does rake up the number of wives in series.

    Yes, Peter. They do (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:52:49 PM EST
    And I must admit that I am surprised that you would need to ask such a question.

    Why would you be surprised? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:10:06 PM EST
    You think that people in MS or AL (particularly GOP voters) are more enlightened than the 75% of American pastors who say Mormons are not Christians?  Hell, in Alabama, 45% of GOP voters claim Obama's a Muslim (and 41% aren't sure), while 60% don't believe in evolution (and 13% aren't sure).

    I'm surprised someone wouldn't ask the question.


    The closest poll I found (none / 0) (#10)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 07:45:48 PM EST
    ... was a few years old, and didn't break down respondents by state.

    A slim majority of the public (52%) says that Mormonism is a Christian religion, while nearly one-in-three (31%) say that Mormonism is not a Christian religion. White evangelicals stand out for their view that the Mormon religion is not Christian: a 45% plurality says that Mormonism is not Christian, while 40% say it is. Among white evangelicals who attend services at least weekly, 52% believe that the Mormon religion is not Christian.

    By contrast, large majorities of white mainline Protestants (62%) and white non-Hispanic Catholics (59%) say that Mormons are Christians. In addition, those with no formal religious affiliation also say that the Mormon religion is Christian by a wide margin (59%-25%).

    Given the prevalence of evangelicals in MS and AL, I would say only a minority consider Mormons to be "Christians".


    Found a 2011 poll (none / 0) (#15)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:28:11 PM EST
    51% of all people say Mormons are Christians.  Among white, evangelical Protestants, a 47% plurality say Mormons are not Christians.

    Maybe someday I will understand why (none / 0) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:43:42 PM EST
    this matters to anyone, why anyone cares whether someone who is Mormon is "really" a Christian.

    I'm just so sick of all the religious judgment; if someone's faith - or lack of faith - works for them, who are any of us to pass judgment on it?

    And that is one stupid poll, if you don't mind my saying so; it just feeds this sick and insecure obsession with people's personal lives.


    There once was a time (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    when almost all the people believed in God and the church ruled everything. Not surprisingly this time was called the "Dark Ages."


    "Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it."


    Did you see South Park creators' (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:10:39 PM EST
    "Book of Mormon, the Musical"?  

    P.S.  Almost came to fisticuffs w/a close friend who was raised Mormon but since teenage yrs. has been an atheist.  But she got really prickly when I pronounced Mormons are not Christians.  


    I think the poll ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:27:45 PM EST
    ... is relevant to the issue of whether people are less likely to vote for Romney or Santorum based on the candidate's religious beliefs.  I think that's also what Peter was getting at in his original question.

    Not saying whether people should pass judgment on other's religious beliefs when choosing a candidate, but they do.

    OTOH - If a candidate acknowledges that their policy decisions or agenda will be significantly influenced by their religious beliefs, I think it's relevant.


    If I were a Republican, I would not be able (none / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:50:25 PM EST
    to vote for Santorum because his religion is clearly a driving, motivating force behind the positions for which he advocates.

    So, yes, I think the influence a candidate's religion has on his politics matters, but only if that candidate is putting it front and center - otherwise, I just don't care.

    The problem I had with the poll was that it seemed less aimed at any specific candidate and more at encouraging people to pass judgment about others' religious affiliations.


    Rick doesn't talk about being Catholic (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:37:14 AM EST
    He talks about abortion, he's recently said some real racist things about poorness being black peoples fault, with him gays are an abomination, and he's all for oppressing these crazy women.  He didn't talk about eating grits for the first time or say ya'll in yankee, talk about waving a brightly colored flag that says, "I am not one of you".  He talks and acts exactly like Conservative Republicans around here do.  They can't actually hear that he is a Catholic just like they can't hear that Barack Obama is not a Muslim.

    If someone wanted to beat him dirty down here they would have dropped the Papist bomb, that's dog whistle heritage klan and he probably would have been smeared badly.  Nobody did that though to their credit.  If Newt wasn't a Papist though now, he'd probably have done it quietly in a heartbeat through "outside" channels.


    I ask you. Who evangelizes more (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    than the LDS?  Why, they even baptized Gandhi posthumously.  

    Thanks for pointing out my error (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    in vocabulary, Oculus.  I didn't really mean to be asking about "evangelicals," did I? (There are evangelicals and non-evangelicals in nearly every religious group, except those which are evangelical in their essence, like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Lubavitcher Jews, etc.) I guess I meant "Protestant fundamentalists."

    Actually, the various groups refer to each other (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    as denominations.

    Among them the Church of Christ is more fundamental than Baptists who are more fundamental than Methodists who are, etc.,...each group is more or less convinced that they have the answer as to who has the keys to heaven. And while each is suspicious of the other, Catholics and Mormons are numbers 2 and 1 on the list. But to be fair, the Catholics and the Mormons return the favor.

    The real question is, will they vote for a Catholic or Mormon if he is running against Obama?

    Do I have a "poll?" No, but I am born and raised Southerner, this is my society, I know a lot of people across a wide economic/education spectrum and I have listened to what they say.

    The answer is yes. An enemy of my enemy is my friend definitely applies. To understand that you have to understand that the south was invaded and was occupied. It may sound silly, but that still matters.


    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:36:31 PM EST
    To understand that you have to understand that the south was invaded and was occupied. It may sound silly, but that still matters.

    That does sound silly.

    BTW - I do have a poll, and it shows that a 47% plurality of white, Protestant evangelicals (sound like the South?) don't think Mormons are "Christians".

    Guess they didn't poll your friends.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:27:22 AM EST
    let's not forget that Richmond, Virginia, was devastated by the Civil War, and yet Virginia was blue in 2008.  And then there's North Carolina, also blue in 2008.  Speaking as someone who lived in North Carolina until very recently, this has a bit to do with the migration of non-Southerners to the state, but it also has to do with jobs, education, and effective state governments.  Terry Sanford is thought of as one of the great governors of the 20th century for pushing the state to promote integration, invest in education, etc.  To act like this all has to do with what happened 150 years ago and nothing will ever change is to dismiss the way some states have chosen to adapt and modernize.  

    Virginia is weird though (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:50:09 AM EST
    Take away the DC metro area and Virginia is still really a red southern state.  I think 2008 was an anomaly, including having a lot of military folks support Obama, nd while Northern Virginia will still be blue, I don't think you'll see the same level of support for Obama this year.  Plus, we have an open Senate seat which looks to possibly  pit George Allen against Tim Kaine - not exactly liberal bastions.

    Thanks, Jim (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:08:32 PM EST
    That does answer my question, and I think persuasively.  What you say makes sense ... except for the last paragraph, that is.  

    The last paragraph captures why (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:38:37 PM EST
    it probably would have required a Stalin-style genocide to achieve the goals of Reconstruction.

    And that was never on the table.


    Peter, the last paragraph (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    was a just a note that the effects of the war was devastating on the south. Remember that the south had almost no manufacturing base so there was nothing there to build on. The large land owners had been hurt but were large enough to survive.

    It was the small land owners that were really wiped out. And remember that the vast majority of the small land owners owned no slaves. They fought because their homes were being invaded. After the war they had no lines of credit, no markets and no distribution system that was not controlled by the infamous carpetbaggers. It was truly a situation made to create intra generation hatred for the government.

    And the large landowners and merchants fed that hatred. It took WWII for the lower classes to see that there was a world beyond there small towns. My parents were sharecroppers. My dad served in the Marines and went to school after the war and he and my Mom worked their way to land ownership and a comfortable middle class retirement. But I digress.

    The hatred is gone, but the distrust for the government remains. Beyond the large cities the South was always conservative as Democrats. It remains conservative as Republicans.

    By and large it sees Obama as just the latest government agent to tell them what to do.

    Now, is there some people who are bigoted/racist towards Obama? Yes. But they are not confined to the South and the vast majority of those who oppose him do so because of his politics.


    stats from (none / 0) (#58)
    by DFLer on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:20:06 PM EST

    According to the U.S. 1860 Census, one out of every four families in Virginia owned slaves. There were over 100 plantation owners who owned over 100 slaves.[4]

        Number of slaves in the Lower South: 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
        Number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208,758 (29% of total population).
        Number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

    Fewer than one-third of all Southern families owned slaves at the peak of slavery prior to the Civil War. In Mississippi and South Carolina the figure approached one half.

    Those d@mn facts (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:52:49 PM EST
    Soooooooo inconvenient.

    OK, let's lump all the states (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:51:35 PM EST
    together and say the number was 1 out of 3 families for all the states.

    Now you do understand, don't you that if one out of three families, owned slaves, then the war had to be fought by the 67% that didn't own slaves.

    Or else it would have been a very short war.

    So my point remains. The small land owner fought the war and suffered the most during "Reconstruction." There should be nothing surprising in that to any liberal. It is always the little guy who takes the brunt.


    Why "lump them together"? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    Oh, ... that's right.  Because if you include the border states and Upper South, it lowers the percentage of those in the South who owned slaves.  Of course, when you look at the deep South and realize that in several states about half of the population owned slaves, that disproves your original, evidence-free, claim.  Many of the rest just couldn't afford to buy slaves, but they sure didn't object to slavery.  In fact, ...

    .... they were more than willing to go to war to defend it.


    Peter (none / 0) (#56)
    by cal1942 on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:38:53 PM EST
    Old Democrat, Yankee to the core that I am, I have to agree with Jim on this one.

    The Civil war still rings in some native born Southerners.  If not upfront then at the least in the subconscious.


    So what (none / 0) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:12:01 AM EST
    you're saying is--- Black People are viewed even worse than cultist in Alabama and Mississippi, somehow this doesn't suprise me.

    Oh and for the record (none / 0) (#35)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:14:56 AM EST
    with regards to African-Americans-- it doesn't count as an invasion when you're brought someplace against your will and in chains.  

    But hey Jim maybe you're wrong I mean a plurality of GOP primary voters in Mississippi now believe interracial marriage should be legal which is an improvement from 2010.


    You know, you are typical of someone who has (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    no knowledge of the south, no investment in seeing it improve and wants only to display your hatred.

    I give you the hundreds of local black officials, a governor, wide support for a NSA, two Sec States, a SC Justice and yes.... Herman Cain.

    You know, the South came from a troubled past but it has largely gotten past that. I coach little league baseball and watch a team of kids...black and white kids... playing, supporting and cheering each other. I see their parents setting together in the stands, cheering the kids and chatting with each other about the game, their gardens, their jobs, their lives as friends and neighbors.

    Socraticsilence, I feel so sorry for you. Hatred for others is always worse on the hater.


    A much more accurate term. But no one (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:10:12 PM EST
    uses it!

    The exits actually say Gingrich gets shut out (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    while Santorum takes Al and Romney takes MS.

    But the results say Santorum might take both (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 09:12:23 PM EST

    Santorum does take both Alabama (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15:57 PM EST
    and Mississippi. So much for the power of cheese grits, Mitt.

    Now what? Anybody have any info on Illinois? That primary is coming up soon.

    I saw Santorum on the news tonight vowing to take this all the way to the convention. His goal right now is to simply make sure Romney does not rack up the 1144 delegates needed for the nomination before Santorum gets the chance to fight him tooth and nail in Tampa.


    I think Santorum takes IL pretty easily (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:36:38 PM EST
    But watch for Gingrich to drop out tomorrow. That could make things uncomfortable for Romney pretty quickly. But it could also cause Santorum to melt in the spotlight.

    This is basically over. But the longer it takes to really be over, the better.


    Very much doubt Gingrich (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:22:09 AM EST
    drops out any time soon.  He's in it for redemption, respect, ego, etc., not because he ever actually thought he might win (except for a few days back there when he unexpectedly won... some state, can't remember which one.)

    He doesn't like Santorum a whole lot more than he likes Romney, so for him, dropping out to let Santorum carry the charge is just a non-option.

    Gingrich is not and never has been your ordinary politician with ordinary motivations and calculus.


    Gingrich started his faux-campaign as a way to (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:57:04 AM EST
    make money, pure and simple. When he became the not-Romney of the week his ego kicked in and he started believing his own hype.

    He'll drop out when either the money flow reverses, or he gets a better deal. Until then, even being in the will-he-or-won't-he limelight is still limelight.


    Agree with you (none / 0) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 16, 2012 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    100 percent.

    Oops, I mean't ROMNEY takes IL (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:35:57 PM EST
    And yet (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 06:52:48 AM EST
    With wins in Hawaii and American Samoa, Romney wins 40 delegates and Santorum only picks up 35 yesterday.

    And moves into much friendlier territory (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 07:15:26 AM EST
    The road gets easier for Romney from here on out.

    Even in defeat, Mitt Romney is nothing if not consistent. In nearly every state where he has campaigned, exit polls show Romney performing basically the same in every major demographic group, give or take a few points.

    And despite the results Tuesday night, it's almost definitely good enough for him to win the GOP nomination.

    That's because, while those demographics have been too tough for him to overcome in Southern primaries and Midwestern caucus states, those states are basically done voting.

    The road forward goes through much less conservative voters.


    How consistent is Romney? He has taken between 26 percent and 30 percent of the vote in every Southern state dominated by conservative voters -- Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

    The thing is, while that consistency cost him on Tuesday, it's likely to benefit him going forward. While the voting is just halfway done, Romney is almost done with his most troubling region, the South, and his most troubling contests, Midwestern caucuses.

    Even in the remaining Southern states, things may get better; both Texas and Louisiana feature more concentrated urban populations (a Romney strong suit) than other Southern states, which should help him perform better. (Romney also performed well in Western Mississippi, which is a good omen for his campaign in the state's neighbor-to-the-west, Louisiana, on March 24.)

    Romney's problems outside the South have been almost completely relegated to Midwestern caucus states with low turnout. In fact, the only primary Romney has lost outside of the South was in Missouri, which was a beauty contest in which Romney didn't compete.

    As I said (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:01:27 PM EST
    The real question is, will they vote for a Catholic or Mormon if he is running against Obama?

    Do I have a "poll?" No, but I am born and raised Southerner, this is my society, I know a lot of people across a wide economic/education spectrum and I have listened to what they say.

    The answer is yes. An enemy of my enemy is my friend definitely applies. To understand that you have to understand that the south was invaded and was occupied. It may sound silly, but that still matters.


    I have no idea why this is in response (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:08:20 PM EST
    to my comment.

    It's not. Misposted, I'm sure. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    I think it was meant to attach to Yman @ #22.

    I've learned that (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:20:05 AM EST
    Jim doesn't always really know who he's having conversations with or what that conversation is.  And it's probably your fault that you chose to comment on his remarks intended for someone else.  

    Oh, and that it's up to you to "keep up".  I learned that, too.

    However, it is my opinion that if he didn't treat all comments as just one giant free-for-all conversation, where everything he says is related to every other thing that he says, that he wouldn't be nearly the blog-clogger that he is, and his valid points would start to speak for themselves.


    And I have learned that (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    you, sj, jump into conversations and make erroneous claims and then refuse to accept correction and carry the disagreement onward to another thread.

    Guess you just wanna quarrel.

    And no, andgarden, my comments were not misplaced. I was merely pointing out why Santorum won and that there should be no surprise. (yikeish)


    They are only extraneous claims (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by sj on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    if you think that all conversations are related to each other.  It is the nature of threaded conversations to diverge.  I don't know how you view comments -- I know that the site offers more than one view mode -- but these are threaded comments.  

    My conversation with you is NOT part of your conversation with Yman/andgarden/MT.  Threaded comments are designed for commenters to "jump in".  That's part of what makes them so wonderfully dynamic.  That's part of what distinguishes TL commenters/commenting from, for example, Eschaton.  Commenting here is not flat.  It is threaded.

    I really am starting to see why/how you talk yourself into the corners that you do.  I'm probably not going to engage with you again unless provoked.  I have no desire to be thrown into the middle of your arguments with other people.  

    Frankly, I think that's a shame because while I don't agree with you often, analyzing my disagreement with you can help me clarify my own position to myself.  But I'd rather just mostly scroll past now that I know you think we're all in the same "room" shouting out ... whatever.


    sj, I showed the comment you made (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 08:57:57 PM EST
    that I responded to.

    Sorry that you want to pursue the issue, I don't, but I don't feel like I need to read a bunch of inaccurate claims.

    Please. Drop it.


    And Mormons were invaded (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:42:19 PM EST
    in Utah when the Federal Government sent troops to Utah to put a stop to polygamy.

    And, then just after the turn of the Century, the U.S. Senate held a series of humiliating hearings before they would seat Reed Smoot as the U.S. Senator from Utah.  The hearings centered on whether Mormons had really given up polygamy and aspects of LDS theology.  The Mormon Church President was cross-examined in person for days.

    So, Mormons, like Southernors, hate the Federal Government. And like classic overachievers, Mormons and Southernors are more overtly patriotic than anyone else.  And more Republican.   The Mormon West and the Evangelical South....That is the Republican base.

    It's about the culture, stupid.   Not the economy.


    Both groups also (none / 0) (#36)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:17:27 AM EST
    share a historical enmity towards African-Americans.

    Mormons less so (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:26:28 AM EST
    Brigham Young had such an enmity....

    Rank and file Mormons not so much.....

    The policy against African Americans holding the priesthood was a carry-over from Brigham Young that took a long time to change....

    And, today, there is no lingering racism among Mormons--unlike much of the South.

    But both Mormons and Southern Baptists are big on affirming "traditional" roles for women.  


    "That still matters.." (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 06:45:27 PM EST
    you (or should I say, yew) aren't kidding..

    You still see too-many-for-comfort "Hell No, We Aint forgot" - with a stars 'n bars background - bumperstickers down there. How that kind of thing is meant to encourage racial harmony and reconciliation is a mystery that passes all understanding..

    And now there's all this talk down there about secret-furner--Muslim Presidents to bring people together even more..  


    BTD, Gov. Luis Fortuno as VP? (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 13, 2012 at 11:32:16 PM EST

    I'm reminded... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 09:39:45 AM EST
    of the discussions of Iraq post-invasion, that they might be better off splitting up into three countries.

    We might be better off and happier splitting the USA up into 4-5 countries...just sayin'.

    That seems a bit extreme to me. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    If we can just get the right to support the one they're in, I think we'll be fine.

    As they're finding out... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:14:02 AM EST
    in the European Union, bigger is not always better.  

    When we've reached this level of division, and seemingly fail to agree on even the most fundamental sh*t, might be time to consider it.  We'd have to end up with 4-5 federal governments that better represent their respective citizenry, no?  And we could put a serious hurtin' on the military industrial & prison industrial complexes.  Aside from being lumped in the same republic, how much if anything do Alabama and NY, or Texas and Washington, or California and Ohio really have in common?


    Breaking up into separate regions based on (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Farmboy on Thu Mar 15, 2012 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    respective citizenry certainly worked out for Yugoslavia in 1990, didn't it?

    A diverse society or homogenous one? (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    Interesting point kdog...except doesn't it counter any aspiration for a broader, more inclusive society.  

    Now, can you make the case for accepting & living the conflict that differences (and diversity) engender?


    I don't think so... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:17:37 PM EST
    there would still be some diversity of opinion to be found in the 4-5 new nations.  Diversity is vital, yes, but I think there may be a breaking point where diversity becomes an insurmountable divide.

    A nation needs diversity, but it must be built upon a foundation of agreement in certain core principles.  I'd like to believe we have this foundation...liberty and justice for all, equality under the law, minorities protected from the tyranny of a majority...but do we or is that a fairy tale at this point?

    Why live with such strong conflicts if we don't have to?  Wouldn't we all be happier, and better served, chopping this puppy up?

    Worth adding it is hard to gauge how divided we truly are when, imo, there are entrenched powers that fuel and bank on these divisions to distract us from the ties that bind and unite us...aka  divide and economically conquer.


    think of the immigration (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    nightmares.  Especially if the different nations develop different immigration rules for the rest of the world.

    Europe seemed to manage... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    pre and post EU.

    Maybe we can agree on an open borders policy, and hopefully see that spread to the rest of the world.  My life is my passport.  Now I'm really pipe-dreamin';)


    did they really though? (none / 0) (#60)
    by CST on Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    I'm just thinking that while it might start out with an open border policy, as soon as one of the nations implements a Dream Act, or some other form of immigration reform - there are a few other nations that might slam the door.

    I'm still getting used to taking my passport to Canada, nevermind Florida.  Btw, Canadian border patrol is way friendlier than American border patrol.  Last I checked smiling doesn't kill you.  Also, you can get pulled over south of the border if you are deemed to be driving at an "odd time".  If it hadn't taken me 2 hours to find my freaking passport we might have gotten there earlier!