Monday, August 07, 2006

The New South?


With an arsenal of questionable tales from former congressional interns, my jury of personal opinion on Congressman Harold Ford is still out. In spite of these reservations, I'd like to share the following article from TIME, which offers its take on one of the younger members of Congress who is making his bid for senator this fall.

My favorite --and perhaps the most redeeming-- quote from the article:

Harold Ford Jr. was raised in the tradition of old-style Southern politics, but if he wins, he could be creating a new one. He says, "It's harder for Senate Democrats or candidates to distinguish themselves from the national Democratic model." So instead, he's simply going to try to break it.

4 comments:

Brother Spotless said...

From what I've heard, he's ambitious (like all members of Congress) and a complete asshole (again, Congress is full of them, but he apparently is worse than most). His voting history looks more like a Republican's, until I realize that it has to be that way if he wants to survive politically in the South. If we voted in a vaccum, I wouldn't vote for him. However, like the article says, Tennessee is a swing state, and could tilt the balance of power in the Senate. In that regard, I'd vote for him. Having power in the Senate means that the Dems would have control of what votes make it to committee, and ultamitely the Senate Floor.

I have similar reservations about Casey in Pennsylvania, but he's running against Santorum. Taking Tennessee and defeating Santorum would not only push the balance of power to the Dems (I'm not wildly excited about Dems in general, but the social conservative push that has occured over the last 6 years is killing me), but both would be symbolic blows to the Republican machine. Tennessee is the birthplace of the Klan (probably not fair to use in this argument, but I like pointing that out) and Santorum is #3 on the Rupublican Hiarchy; and he scares me like Strom Thurman scared me...

Ford isn't who I'd be looking for in terms of Black or Democratic leadership, but I still want him to win.

Rightwing Insider said...

When I listen to the rhetoric of the Democrat Party, I am left with the distinct conviction that they just don't get it. Their solution to terrorism is to pull back, prostrate, and beg the terrorist not to kill us.

Make no mistake about it. These are perilous times. We are faced by an implacable enemy who knows nothing beyond killing Americans and "unbelievers." I am reminded of the scene from the movie "Terminator" when the hero is explaining the mission of the Terminator. The Terminator exists to kill the heroine. That's what he does. That's all he does. He cannot be bargained with; he cannot be negotiated with; he cannot be pleaded with. The Democrats and their leadership just don't get it. Because of that, they are unfit to lead.

Rightwing Insider said...

You might want to look at where the CURRENT home of the Klan is before you smear Tennessee!

Brother Spotless said...

The current home of the Klan is irreleavent to my point, which is that the South (and the Right Wing, my insider friend) is the historic and symbolic region of hatred towards blacks. The Klan had a lot to do with that, and Tennessee is where they originated. So, having a black Senator come out of that state would be monumental, both politically and symbolically.

As far as the Insiders ill-placed disagreement with the Democratic Party, I'll simply say this: Republicans have had control of both hoses of Congress and the White House for the better part of the last six years. They underestimated Iraq (remember Rumsfeld saying that we'd be out in 6 months at most? Yea, that was in 2003...). They basically lied and said that Saddam and Osama were allies. They used sweeping generalizations to convince the American public that the entire Middle East was on the same side, ignoring the fact that there are deep-rooted ill feelings between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. Americans are no safer now than before 9/11. Our deficit has only risen. All of this, and Bush still has 2 more years.

Dems may be softer on terrorism (although, I've never heard one Democrat say he/she wants to "negotiate" with terrorists, as our Insider friend has suggested...) but it seems to me that Republicans have only made things worse.