The South

[Beet]

No matter the cost?

[GOPhound]

Whoa...who did I call "the enemy within"?  Who did I say is a "hostile foreigner"?  I was merely stating that the Clinton administration did a horrible job of dealing with terrorism.  

When are you guys going to realize that lobbing some cruise missiles and treating this as a law enforecement issue just doesn't work?  How many more must die?  The only way to stop this madness is to kill these bastards where they hide.  Bush has them on the run.  They're scared sh**tless of him.  

No more game playing with cruise missiles and asking the UN for permission.  The stakes are too high.  Our way of life is at stake.  God help us if John Kerry is elected President.  And it has nothing to do with him being a Democrat.  I would never vote for anyone who thinks the terror threat is overstated and it should be dealt with as a law enforecment issue, be it Democrat or Republican.  

[angus]

Tell us how you really feel.  

[agcatter]

Huh?  Kill the terrorists, but we better keep it a secret or it will piss them off?  

I don't know how to take out terrorist regimes which harbor terrorists and keep it a secret.  And make no mistake, the terrorist supporting regimes are in the end going to have to be taken out.  Hopefully the Iranians themselves will get rid of their terrorist supporting govt, but don't bet on it.  I wouldn't care except that government is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and is doing it right in front of everyone.  When the marriage between terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes with nukes is complete, we are in deep sh**t.  Judging by how they flew those planes into the WTC does anyone doubt that terrorists would hesitate for one second to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of New York, Baltimore or for that matter Memphis, Tennessee.  I don't.  Not for a second.

Call me an alarmist if you'd like, but consider this.  What if I'm right?  

If Al Quida gets hold of a nuclear device, they will use it.  They can't produce one on their own.  There's only one place to get it - from a friendly nation state.  I wish it was just a law enforcement issue.  It would be such a more simple problem.

[Gustaf]

Huh?  Kill the terrorists, but we better keep it a secret or it will piss them off?  

I don't know how to take out terrorist regimes which harbor terrorists and keep it a secret.  And make no mistake, the terrorist supporting regimes are in the end going to have to be taken out.  Hopefully the Iranians themselves will get rid of their terrorist supporting govt, but don't bet on it.  I wouldn't care except that government is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and is doing it right in front of everyone.  When the marriage between terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes with nukes is complete, we are in deep sh**t.  Judging by how they flew those planes into the WTC does anyone doubt that terrorists would hesitate for one second to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of New York, Baltimore or for that matter Memphis, Tennessee.  I don't.  Not for a second.

Call me an alarmist if you'd like, but consider this.  What if I'm right?  

If Al Quida gets hold of a nuclear device, they will use it.  They can't produce one on their own.  There's only one place to get it - from a friendly nation state.  I wish it was just a law enforcement issue.  It would be such a more simple problem.

Of course they aren't morally inhibited, but it's a matter of resources. It's not easy to do terrorist attacks, like in the movies. I mean, there was nothing and then 9/11 and then nothing. Al-Qaeda is pretty shattered right now, I don't think they'll be able to pull off a large scale attack like the one against the WTC again, at elast not in the near future.

[angus]

Huh?  Kill the terrorists, but we better keep it a secret or it will piss them off?  

I don't know how to take out terrorist regimes which harbor terrorists and keep it a secret.  And make no mistake, the terrorist supporting regimes are in the end going to have to be taken out.  Hopefully the Iranians themselves will get rid of their terrorist supporting govt, but don't bet on it.  I wouldn't care except that government is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and is doing it right in front of everyone.  When the marriage between terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes with nukes is complete, we are in deep sh**t.  Judging by how they flew those planes into the WTC does anyone doubt that terrorists would hesitate for one second to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of New York, Baltimore or for that matter Memphis, Tennessee.  I don't.  Not for a second.

Call me an alarmist if you'd like, but consider this.  What if I'm right?  

If Al Quida gets hold of a nuclear device, they will use it.  They can't produce one on their own.  There's only one place to get it - from a friendly nation state.  I wish it was just a law enforcement issue.  It would be such a more simple problem.

Of course they aren't morally inhibited, but it's a matter of resources. It's not easy to do terrorist attacks, like in the movies. I mean, there was nothing and then 9/11 and then nothing. Al-Qaeda is pretty shattered right now, I don't think they'll be able to pull off a large scale attack like the one against the WTC again, at elast not in the near future.

So you're allowing that the Bush Doctrine is actually working?  Good to hear it.  

[Gustaf]

Huh?  Kill the terrorists, but we better keep it a secret or it will piss them off?  

I don't know how to take out terrorist regimes which harbor terrorists and keep it a secret.  And make no mistake, the terrorist supporting regimes are in the end going to have to be taken out.  Hopefully the Iranians themselves will get rid of their terrorist supporting govt, but don't bet on it.  I wouldn't care except that government is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and is doing it right in front of everyone.  When the marriage between terrorists and terrorist supporting regimes with nukes is complete, we are in deep sh**t.  Judging by how they flew those planes into the WTC does anyone doubt that terrorists would hesitate for one second to detonate a nuclear device in the middle of New York, Baltimore or for that matter Memphis, Tennessee.  I don't.  Not for a second.

Call me an alarmist if you'd like, but consider this.  What if I'm right?  

If Al Quida gets hold of a nuclear device, they will use it.  They can't produce one on their own.  There's only one place to get it - from a friendly nation state.  I wish it was just a law enforcement issue.  It would be such a more simple problem.

Of course they aren't morally inhibited, but it's a matter of resources. It's not easy to do terrorist attacks, like in the movies. I mean, there was nothing and then 9/11 and then nothing. Al-Qaeda is pretty shattered right now, I don't think they'll be able to pull off a large scale attack like the one against the WTC again, at elast not in the near future.

So you're allowing that the Bush Doctrine is actually working?  Good to hear it.  

In the short term, definitely. It's in fact a pretty good short term strategy. But I'm not sure whether Bush or other Republicans understand that it isn't a good LONG-TERM strategy.

[angus]

agreed.  what goes up, must come down.  true for balloons and empires.

[Gustaf]

agreed.  what goes up, must come down.  true for balloons and empires.

And dot-com companies...

[zachman]

The real dot-com companies never exploded. E-commerce is growing.

[Beet]

Whoa...who did I call "the enemy within"?  Who did I say is a "hostile foreigner"?  I was merely stating that the Clinton administration did a horrible job of dealing with terrorism.  

When are you guys going to realize that lobbing some cruise missiles and treating this as a law enforecement issue just doesn't work?  How many more must die?  The only way to stop this madness is to kill these bastards where they hide.  Bush has them on the run.  They're scared sh**tless of him.  

No more game playing with cruise missiles and asking the UN for permission.  The stakes are too high.  Our way of life is at stake.  God help us if John Kerry is elected President.  And it has nothing to do with him being a Democrat.  I would never vote for anyone who thinks the terror threat is overstated and it should be dealt with as a law enforecment issue, be it Democrat or Republican.  

I don't think Kerry thinks the terror threat should be dealt with strictly as a law enforcement issue. Nor does he think the terror threat is "overstated"... I think he takes it very seriously. The resources of the military and the military's intelligence should be playing the prime role. And I think Kerry recognizes that. He never said restrict the anti-terror role to the FBI. Just because he is critical of Bush's handling of the Iraq was doesn't mean he's not going to pursue the war on terror as vigorously as necessary. Sorry for putting words into your mouth, but that is what a lot of people say these days, in fact I have even seen a lot of people who say they hate liberals more than terrorists.

[Gustaf]

The real dot-com companies never exploded. E-commerce is growing.

It depends on what you mean by 'real'. Fact remains, a lot of dot.com companies lost about 95% of their value.

[zachman]

Amazon, e-bay, and other big bussinesses are thriving.

[agcatter]

....And I have seen SOME on the left who hate Bush more than terrorists.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They are usually about 12 though...

[agcatter]

Usually

[Inmate Trump]

Sure, Kerry *can* win the election without one southern state.  But it just isn't very likely.

I read on John Edwards' website once that not one candidate since (I think) the 1950s has won the election without winning at least 5 southern states.

The South is one HUGE voting block the Dems keep ignoring more and more election after election.

[zachman]

Thats true but the South was really the democrats posession until Reagan, and since then Clinton was the only democrat to win the White House.

[Nation]

I'd agree that Kerry can probably win without a real southern state (excluding Florida), but GWBFan has a point. The Dems can't keep ignoring the south election after election, or else it will never return to them. Ever.

[agcatter]

True, but they'll have to make a decision.  Do they want to continue to veer left, losing the South and losing national elections OR do they want to give up a chunk of their left wing ideology and win.  One or the other - they can't have it both ways.

[zachman]

Thats a tough question. I think the democrats should certainly put resources into building upwards in NC, GA, TN, LA, and Virginia. The growing south that is home to fats growing cities, and technology jobs, needs to be part of the strategy. On the contrary, a Western strategy of building up in NV, NM, AZ, CO, and more work in CA and OR would give the democrats an edge.

I would prefer the second strategy because it gives the Democrats more lee-way on social issues, and I like the West better than the South. Although work in Virginia and Florida should definetly be part of the democratic strategy, because they are on the urban side of the urban vs. rural power struggle.

[agcatter]

As long as Dems veer as far left as they've chosen to, they are going to have problems in the west as well.  However, they truly belief in a very left of center ideology so they are not going to move away from it.  Instead, they hang onto it and instead attempt to camouflage it as much as possible at election time.  That will never work in the South.  People aren't buying it.  And they will have to do a lot more than "put in resources".  They are going to have to stand for something different or just write the South off.

I truly believe most Democrats would much prefer to merrily continue to go down the liberal road rather than moderate and be more competitive in the South.

[Ben.]

Democrats have to fight for the south if only to boost the chances of the senate candidates there…and those chances with Dean gone seem to have dramatically improved….however concentrating on the states you mention does not offer the same rewards as working on those southern states which are conceivably within our grasp (GA, LA, FL, VA, AK and TN)… over time people from the Midwest (where manufacturing will begin to wane as a source of employment) will begin to move in large numbers to the south west and the south east coast making states such as NC, GA, SC, FL and VA highly competive while the depopulated Midwest will trend much more towards the GOP as they become much more rural and similar in many ways to Kentucky and Indiana with the possible exception of Illinois and perhaps Wisconsin both of which seem to have diversified much more successfully and rapidly than any of their neighbours…          

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

True, but they'll have to make a decision.  Do they want to continue to veer left, losing the South and losing national elections OR do they want to give up a chunk of their left wing ideology and win.  One or the other - they can't have it both ways.

I'm okay with trying to appeal to the South, as long as we stay away from the religous right.  I don't want to see my party having to go to the lengths of injecting religon into public life to appeal to these people.  Unforunately, thats a huge part of the south.  

Secondly, I don't get this argument.  Do you see the GOP putting any effort at all into the Northeast?  No, none at all.  Each party has their base in the NE and South, save for a few states (PA and NH for the Dems, FL, TN, and WV for the GOP).  The GOP has a base of KY, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, AR, and TX.   The Dems have a base of MD, NJ, NY, DE, CT, RI, MA, VT, and ME.  That's just the way it is.  I don't see the GOP winning any landslides in the next few election if THEY ignore the 100+ EVs up here.  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Democrats have to fight for the south if only to boost the chances of the senate candidates there…and those chances with Dean gone seem to have dramatically improved….however concentrating on the states you mention does not offer the same rewards as working on those southern states which are conceivably within our grasp (GA, LA, FL, VA, AK and TN)… over time people from the Midwest (where manufacturing will begin to wane as a source of employment) will begin to move in large numbers to the south west and the south east coast making states such as NC, GA, SC, FL and VA highly competive while the depopulated Midwest will trend much more towards the GOP as they become much more rural and similar in many ways to Kentucky and Indiana with the possible exception of Illinois and perhaps Wisconsin both of which seem to have diversified much more successfully and rapidly than any of their neighbours…          

I mostly agree with that.  I think 20 years from now, The Dems will have the Northeast, the eastern south (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL), the populated Midwest (IL, WI, and MI), and the Pacific coast and the southwest.  

I really see it as a tough situation for the GOP.  It seems like more people are moving to the areas they currently control, and as places become more urbanized, they tend to become more liberal.  This is just a map of how i see it in the future, maybe in 15-20 yrs..  Red states are democratic territory, blue republican.  (not necessarily in reference to any future election, just in general, as MS is generally GOP, and NY is generally Dem)