Author Ken Wilber in The Theory of Everything points out that the "red state" viewpoint, which he says should really be called "green state" (in the sense by which the American public uses the term 'green'), has a load of inconsistencies and a lot of intolerance for those who disagree with its message of tolerance (I'm simplifying), has a number of people hiding a pre-modern adolescent attitude under post-modern slogans, (which he calls Boomeritis. He's either a late Silent or early Boomer, I think a Pluto in Leo Silent) and that green state values are only viable and nondestructive on a solid base of Enlightenment (which he calls orange-state) values.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Just last week I got into a fight with one of my oldest friends, a sociologist, who claims that data shows Americans are becoming more and more tolerant of diversity.

But they are. Anyone you can't see this for himself is living in the Cloister. When I was a kid it was perfectly acceptable to beat up queers, just as it was acceptable in my parent's day to beat up niggers who strayed into white areas.

Today, at least in the Midwest, people are more tolerant.

What is happening in the political world, evidently, doesnt' count.

What is happening in the political world is a reaction against new (and unsettling) arrangements. Thirty years ago a common meme was that your kids would be better off if you split with your spouse rather than stay together for the sake of the kids. The idea was that if you were happier then you could be a better parent. We know today that this is garbage. As long as your spouse isn't abusive or harms the kids, it is probably better for them if you don't divorce, even though it won't be better for you.

Another meme was that a single parent can do as good a job as two parents. Yes, a single parent can do an excellent job raising her kids, but its much easier if there are two parents. On average, children from intact families do better in school and later on in life that those from broken families. A side effect of this meme was the idea that a father's role is ancilliary to child rearing.

We now know that fathers have important roles that are different from the mother's. Parents consisting of a man and woman will naturally encompass both of these roles. Parents consisting of two people of the same sex will not naturally encompass these roles. Yes, in indiviidual cases same sex parents can provide both roles and do an excellent job of rearing children just as individual single parents can. But just as single parent do not, on average, have the same outcome as dual parents, it is likely that same sex parents will also not, on average, have the same outcome.

So I can see how a distinction can be drawn between parents of opposite sexes and parents of the same sex. Since marriage is the insitution that creates the family, the foundation of society, I can see how a conservative approach to tinkering with this foundation would be to err on the side of caution. And when such instincts are combined with tradition and religious beliefs I can easily see why a great many people would be dead set against gay marriage, even if they are personally more tolerant of gays.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Martin Luther King dreamed of the day that we would judge each other based on the content of our character. That is what many of us Democrats are trying to do.

No it's not. And Democrats are losing election after election because it is quite obvious that liberals use race merely as a means to a political end. Even blacks are beginning to sense this is the case, and they are tired of being used. Bush and the Republicans are clearly making solid gains into that 90% black voter block, because of this. That 90% black voter block has fallen to about 75%, and continues to fall.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

If we have contempt for Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Alberto Gonzales, it has nothing to do with their ancestry--it's because of untruthfulness and shameless sycophancy (Rice), limited intellect and antediluvian views (Thomas), and contempt for the constitution and shameless sycophancy (Gonzales.) (I also was deeply offended by Gonzales' demeanor as he was questioned about torture. He smiled all the way through it, treating the trashing of the Bill of Rights as joke.) We would feel exactly the same way if they were white. To excuse them because they are not would be an act of racism.

This is nothing more than meaningless, subjective tripe masquerading as high-brow intellectualism. No matter, however, as the American people, as well as the Iraqis, have once again spoken via free elections: And Democrats continue to slide deeper and deeper into the pit of irrelevancy.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Incidentally--if you want to understand the Fourth Turning spirit out in the heartland, read What's the Matter With Kansas.

If anybody cares to see where the black vote is headed, ought to check out the latest U.S. Census. The numbers show a massive migration of blacks, returning, to the South. Yet, look how the Democrats have positioned themselves. Their message is that the racial environment in America is worse than it was in MLK's day! Now how can this possibly be, huh? How can it be that these migrating blacks are seemingly committing suicide by returning to the south?

Democrats live a time warp. Just like they are still stuck in the quagmire of Vietnam, they are still stuck in Selma circa 1964. But the rest of America has moved on.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have also just read an interesting review of a new book by Anatol LIeven, a Russian emigre, America Right or Wrong, in which he discusses the apparent American rejection of the Enlightenment during this 4T.

Oh, brother. Millions of raised, purple fingers give quite the impression that you, sir, are one deluded fellow.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Just last week I got into a fight with one of my oldest friends, a sociologist, who claims that data shows Americans are becoming more and more tolerant of diversity.

But they are. Anyone you can't see this for himself is living in the Cloister. When I was a kid it was perfectly acceptable to beat up queers, just as it was acceptable in my parent's day to beat up niggers who strayed into white areas.

Here is a recent news article on the new black migration to their southern roots. Again, this is solid validation that Democrats and liberals are merely living in the past, not the present.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Another meme was that a single parent can do as good a job as two parents... We now know that fathers have important roles that are different from the mother's.

Again, I addressed this very same issue as "feminism has run it's course" at this website, recently. The notion was simply rejected by those posting here. Anybody who supports the notion of a two-parent family is quickly deemed a fundamentalist neocon, wife-beating Bush-licker Xian, by the hysterical left. Oh, yeah, we're imperialist pigs, too.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

And when such instincts are combined with tradition and religious beliefs I can easily see why a great many people would be dead set against gay marriage, even if they are personally more tolerant of gays.

You're getting close to stepping off the plantation, dude, better watch your step.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

Author Ken Wilber in The Theory of Everything points out that the "red state" viewpoint, which he says should really be called "green state" (in the sense by which the American public uses the term 'green'), has a load of inconsistencies and a lot of intolerance for those who disagree with its message of tolerance (I'm simplifying), has a number of people hiding a pre-modern adolescent attitude under post-modern slogans, (which he calls Boomeritis. He's either a late Silent or early Boomer, I think a Pluto in Leo Silent) and that green state values are only viable and nondestructive on a solid base of Enlightenment (which he calls orange-state) values.

I didn't know Wilber updated TOE to include current politics. Interesting. And Wilber is a 1949 cohort Boomer.

But I very, very much doubt Wilber called the Red States "green" (unless there was a typo). He reserves Green (along the lines of "Spiral Dynamics") as postmodern progressive (both in it's healthy and all-too-often unhealthy forms). Orange would be Materialist Modern, and Blue would be Premodern "mythic-based" authoritarian.

So as I understand Wilber, the Blue States would be an Orange-Green and Red States a Blue-Orange. Since both would contain significant elements of Orange (and perhaps be the base for a relative Centrist agenda) the big difference is the strong Blue influence in the Bush states and Green influence in the Gore/Kerry states. This is of course, one hell of a simplification, since many Democrat/Labor types are Blue, but one can see that group changing wholesale from an economic to a cultural bias bringing them into Dubya's "kind" of Blue (again, "blue" as Wilber and Spiral Dynamics use the term).

What Wilber is hopeing for is a strong enough surge of "Second Tier" Yellow to spring forth out of Green and lead us forward (Wilber thinks WAY too much of our intelligensia is stuck at Green, and an unhealthy version of it at that). Yellow would be a mindset/ontology that could be described, in brief, as "early transmodern" and something that integrates premodern subjectivity, modern rationality, and postmodern analytical discoveries.

Mr. Saari is going to have a field day with these colors.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Just last week I got into a fight with one of my oldest friends, a sociologist, who claims that data shows Americans are becoming more and more tolerant of diversity.

But they are. Anyone you can't see this for himself is living in the Cloister. When I was a kid it was perfectly acceptable to beat up queers, just as it was acceptable in my parent's day to beat up niggers who strayed into white areas.

Today, at least in the Midwest, people are more tolerant.

Mike,

I think what David may be getting at is that, yes, tolerance/diverisity is on a long term progressive track, and has especially moved forward (for good and ill) in the past two turnings. Recently however, there has been a decisive reversing of course and this disturbs him. And it apparently disturbs him that others can't see that.

I am also concerned about this, but see it as something that naturally happens at the end of 3T's, or in early 4T's at the latest. We can expect "diversity", at least in it's 2T/3T incarnation, to be on infertile ground for the next few decades, I imagine.

I prefer "integration" myself, as long as it is of the type advanced in the 50's and 60's prior to the radicalization of the civil rights movement: No "Black Power", no separatism, no affirmative action (unless based on transracial class, and even then I advise great caution), and yes, yes, yes to miscegenation.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Recently however, there has been a decisive reversing of course and this disturbs him. And it apparently disturbs him that others can't see that.

I don't see a reversing of course. I see a new initiative blocked.

David wishes to overrule his colleague's data concerning trends with his personal impression of what those trends really are. I wished to point out that it is possible to form an impression different from the one he thinks is obvious that would be in accord with the data.

The Right has begun an offensive to undo the idea that gays are just like everyone else and deserve the same respect. They used their hostility to that idea to win the last election. It could quite possibly have been decisive in Ohio, for instance. They have managed to pressure PBS not to show a program about lesbian parents. A conservative group is trying to get a Catholic school near LA to kick out a kid who has two fathers. (That story was told at length on NPR.) The average person may be more tolerant, but there is a serious political offensive against tolerance.
Let's draw a parallel. In the 1930s, Communists helped organize the CIO unions, and after 1936 were part of the New Deal coalition--as they were again during the war. Being a Communist or a fellow traveler was no big deal during the war--the Soviets were allies. Beginning in 1946, that changed. Communist unions were wiped out, and many peoples' lives and careers were ruined because of brief party membership, or even less. And actually, the Republican party used the anti-Communist offensive the same way the Republicans are using the anti-gay offensive today--to trash liberals.
The current hate word isn't nigger or kike. It's liberal. There's plenty of evidence of that on a host of radio talk shows, on Fox news, and right here on this site. The technique is to mouth standard propaganda about liberals as a substitute for engaging anything they say. It's "Well, what would you expect from a Jew?" all over again.
David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Let's draw a parallel. In the 1930s, Communists helped organize the CIO unions, and after 1936 were part of the New Deal coalition--as they were again during the war. Being a Communist or a fellow traveler was no big deal during the war--the Soviets were allies. Beginning in 1946, that changed. Communist unions were wiped out, and many peoples' lives and careers were ruined because of brief party membership, or even less. And actually, the Republican party used the anti-Communist offensive the same way the Republicans are using the anti-gay offensive today--to trash liberals.

I bolded the the revisionist part of this Kaiserian history lesson because, while the poster is at least honest enough up to that point, he then simply plunges headlong into political hackery. The Republicans did not have a Commie problem in their party following WWII, the Democrats did. And because this Commie problem was about to undo their party, some folks like Arthur Schlesinger decided to do something about it. In Schlesinger's own words, liberals were "behaving badly" during this post-war era, so he and his friends decided to form the ADA. As Peter Beinert, of the New Republic, recently wrote:

• During World War II, only one major liberal organization, the Union for Democratic Action (UDA), had banned communists from its ranks. At the Willard, members of the UDA met to expand and rename their organization. The attendees, who included Reinhold Niebuhr, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Reuther, and Eleanor Roosevelt, issued a press release that enumerated the new organization's principles. Announcing the formation of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the statement declared, "Because the interests of the United States are the interests of free men everywhere," America should support "democratic and freedom-loving peoples the world over." That meant unceasing opposition to communism, an ideology "hostile to the principles of freedom and democracy on which the Republic has grown great."

So, it wasn't Republicans at the fore-front of this anti-commie purge, tail-gunner Joe notwithstanding, at all, it was Democrats. And, according to Schlesinger it all came down to the 1948 election:

• The 1948 campaign as a whole showed [Henry] Wallace far from his best.
  
  The onset of the Cold War had divided American liberals. Most New Dealers believed that liberalism and communism had nothing in common, either as to means or as to ends, and joined Americans for Democratic Action, a new liberal organization that excluded Communists. On the other hand, the Progressive Party represented the last hurrah of the Popular Front of the 1930s. As the radical journalist I.F. Stone wrote in 1950, "The Communists have been the dominant influence in the Progressive Party. . . . If it had not been for the Communists, there would have been no Progressive Party."
  
  Wallace, in a messianic mood, saw himself as the designated savior of the republic. Naively oblivious to the Communist role in his campaign, he roundly attacked the Marshall Plan, blamed Truman for Stalin's takeover of Czechoslovakia and predicted that Truman's "bipartisan reactionary war policy" would end with American soldiers "lying in their Arctic suits in the Russian snow." The United States, Wallace said, was heading into fascism: "We recognize Hitlerite methods when we see them in our own land." He became in effect a Soviet apologist.

It appears the left used the old Hitler routine on Truman just as much as they used this go around on Dubya, huh?

But that's not all. The Democrats had another achilles heel in 1948 as well: they were still, primarily, a Southern Party. And, like Henry Wallace, one Strom Thurmond bolted the Democratic Party to form his own run for the White House. Thurmond did much better than Wallace as it turned out, and the race issue was placed on the back-burner (save for the Republican Eisenhower "invading" Clinton's Arkansas to enforce Brown v. Board in 1954)... until 1964.

And which party, would you guess, opposed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964? To hear Kaiser tell, why you'd think for sure it was those rotten McCarthyesque Republicans. Wrong! Senate Democrats filibustered that bill for 48 long, hard fought days during the "long, hot summer of 1964." When the filibuster was finally broken the bill passed with over 80% of Republicans voting for it!

But that was the beginning of the end of the Democrats hold on the great "Solid South." And with it the political fortunes and power of the party Kaiser and his ilk hold dear. And all they are left with is a once "glorious" history.

But a Kaiserian history they feel compelled to revise in order to make their twilight years a bit more meaningful. :wink:

When I read Wilber's TOE, I conflated "Green" in Spiral Dynamics" with "Green" as in the postmodern Idealist paradigm and played out in the politics of my friends and neighbors. "Blue" as described in Spiral Dynamics was (IIRC) pretty clearly identified with the current "blue state". (It has a copyright date of 2000 and they were certainly talking in those terms around then.) Yes, there is a very large admixture of Orange in both and I wish to high heavens they'd find common ground for agreement there!

PS: his "Red" is SP in the MBTI; "Blue" is SJ, "Orange" in NT, and Green and up is "NF." Alas, like many a theorist, he counts NF higher than NT even when IMO he's as NT as I am. (Note his taste for making patterns and applying them universally. Not like anyoone on THIS list or in the mirror! :wink:

Some thoughts.

1. Mr. Advocate - when you talk about Democrats and liberals being stuck in Selma circa 1964, you have to recall one thing - many liberal Democratic leaders are veterans of the civil rights movements. Sharpton, Jackson - those were their glory days. I would say that this crisis isn't so much a "Democratic Party" crisis, but more of old civil rights instutions that haven't quite figured out how to make themselves relevant after they won their civil rights.

2. Gay marriage, as I posted on another topic, is an irrelevant issue. There is no reason it should top any party's agenda. The only reason it gets so much lipservice is because Republicans want to feed their Xian base. It is wholly unworthy of volumes of discourse. For that reason alone - I shall refrain from the debate. While I personally believe gay couples should enjoy the same civil rights that straight couples do in regards to inheritance, taxes, insurance etc. - I wouldn't put it at the top of my party's agenda, because the Dems, fueled by your party's anti-Gay rhetoric, has got the 10 percent homosexual vote LOCKED up.

3. Gays aside, there is a war on liberals on. Conservatives took advantage of the Iraqi election to beat dissent further into submission. Nearly every conservative op-ed took a tone of anti-liberal, inferring that somehow we hate democracy, or are siding with the insurgents. This is disgusting, but like anything, they take advantage of it to continue their war on 48 percent of the American public.
From what I understand they are just mad that we aren't cheering loud enough, or that we ask questions. And you wonder why you are despised so much? HA. I hope to God we have the strength to bring the war you've started home to you.
What goes around......

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It appears the left used the old Hitler routine on Truman just as much as they used this go around on Dubya, huh?

The comparison between Truman and Bush is not valid because the attacks on Truman came from within his own party. What would be similar is if libertarian Republicans split off from the party and attacked Bush for the Iraq war.

And which party, would you guess, opposed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964? To hear Kaiser tell, why you'd think for sure it was those rotten McCarthyesque Republicans. Wrong! Senate Democrats filibustered that bill for 48 long, hard fought days during the "long, hot summer of 1964." When the filibuster was finally broken the bill passed with over 80% of Republicans voting for it!

Yep and those Southern Democrats are now Republicans. The Republicans are now a Southern party, just like the Democrats used to be. Bush is culturally Southern in a way his father was not. When was the last time the Republicans ran a Southerner for president?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

It appears the left used the old Hitler routine on Truman just as much as they used this go around on Dubya, huh?

The comparison between Truman and Bush is not valid because the attacks on Truman came from within his own party. What would be similar is if libertarian Republicans split off from the party and attacked Bush for the Iraq war.

The attacks on Truman came from those of whom the Democrats had purged from their party, like Henry Wallace, the far left. The "Hitler" attacks on Bush came from the far left as well (moveon.org and Professor Kaiser, as well as the Seadog "libertarians"), who are now about to fully control the Democrat Party.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

And which party, would you guess, opposed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964? To hear Kaiser tell, why you'd think for sure it was those rotten McCarthyesque Republicans. Wrong! Senate Democrats filibustered that bill for 48 long, hard fought days during the "long, hot summer of 1964." When the filibuster was finally broken the bill passed with over 80% of Republicans voting for it!

Yep and those Southern Democrats are now Republicans. The Republicans are now a Southern party, just like the Democrats used to be. Bush is culturally Southern in a way his father was not. When was the last time the Republicans ran a Southerner for president?

Hello? I had no idea that the "Conscience of the senate," Robert Byrd, former Klansman who led the 48-day filibuster in 1964, was a Republican? George Wallace never became a Republican. But Strom T., who did change parties, clearly renounced his racist past.

Nevertheless, what you are saying here is that the south of today is still the south of 1964. You are simply wrong. But that's ok, please ride that pony all the way to complete political irrelevance. Here's a bucket of oats to help get you there.

p.s. Good to see you're back on the plantation, dude. I was gettin' kinda worried about your health.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Nevertheless, what you are saying here is that the south of today is still the south of 1964.

No, that is what you are saying that I am saying. I never said any such thing. The South of today is no more the South of 1964 than the North of today is the North of 1964. Times change. But US political parties, unlike their European equivalents, are not solely ideologically based. They are regional too. And today, the GOP has a culturally conservative Southern wing like the Democrats used to.

The Southerners who opposed civil rights believed they were defending their civilization. So were those who opposed socialism. As it turns out, opposition to civil rights was misguided, but was opposition to socialism?

You are simply wrong.

No you are wrong by inventing a belief and assigning it to me. I believe it's called a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

The attacks on Truman came from those of whom the Democrats had purged from their party, like Henry Wallace, the far left. The "Hitler" attacks on Bush came from the far left as well.

So? Why is this signficant? Bush is on the Right. I would expect attacks on him from all portions of the Left and the Middle to boot.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Recently however, there has been a decisive reversing of course and this disturbs him. And it apparently disturbs him that others can't see that.

I don't see a reversing of course. I see a new initiative blocked.

David wishes to overrule his colleague's data concerning trends with his personal impression of what those trends really are. I wished to point out that it is possible to form an impression different from the one he thinks is obvious that would be in accord with the data.

I'm talking about more than gay marriage, but the blocking of that could in itself be seen as a stoppage of the progress you highlighted.

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

PS: his "Red" is SP in the MBTI; "Blue" is SJ, "Orange" in NT, and Green and up is "NF." Alas, like many a theorist, he counts NF higher than NT even when IMO he's as NT as I am. (Note his taste for making patterns and applying them universally. Not like anyoone on THIS list or in the mirror! :wink:

The hierarchial structure of Wilber's is based on empirical data, though I think the Spiral Dynamics version he uses these days is more than a little limiting and forced. I wish hadn't switched to it so wholesale. He used to use a system that used Piaget for shorthand instead of SD. But the theories synthesized behind it included dozens of psychological and sociological hierarchial systems, not just Piaget.

I think any connection between Jungian/Myers-Briggs types and Wilber's levels is purely coincidental at best.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Nevertheless, what you are saying here is that the south of today is still the south of 1964.

No, that is what you are saying that I am saying. I never said any such thing.

Perfect example of why it's a waste of time to feed the troll. It could even be dangerous. :wink:

Surely this one's been discussed ad infinitum... ANY BODY care about
Michael Jackson? I haven't read one word about his case..don't care...
just let me know when it's over.

The celebrity gossip newsmags don't seem to care about it either.

Is it 4T or more that MJ is a sick puppy has-been?

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Nevertheless, what you are saying here is that the south of today is still the south of 1964.

No, that is what you are saying that I am saying. I never said any such thing.

Perfect example of why it's a waste of time to feed the troll. It could even be dangerous. :wink:

Troll? It's been awhile but isn't Mike pretty much smack dab in the middle? Hardly Troll worthy.

Where's Trollking? He always makes me laugh. :lol:

This is interesting because it is Utah
If he can make it here he can make it anywhere.


Dems pick gay advocate to fill state Senate spot
Scott McCoy: The vice chairman of Equality Utah is tapped to fill the seat vacated by Paula Julander
By Thomas Burr
and Kirsten Stewart
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

In a surprise move, Democrats named gay-rights advocate Scott McCoy to the state Senate on Saturday, making him Utah's second openly gay lawmaker and setting up what could be an interesting matchup in the conservative Legislature.

It's a case of if you can't stand 'em, join 'em.

Just last week, McCoy, as vice chairman of Equality Utah, criticized senators for defeating, in an 18-10 vote, a Senate bill that would have given two adults - gay or otherwise - marriagelike rights. "This is about the fact that they don't want to do anything that would be beneficial for gay people," he said at the time.

"No one can say Democrats are boring," County Party Chairwoman Nichole Adams said Saturday.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is expected to formally appoint McCoy, an attorney, to the Senate on Monday to fill a seat being vacated by Sen. Paula Julander, a Salt Lake City Democrat who is resigning for health reasons.

Democrats elected McCoy, 34, and a former registered Republican, by three votes over Julander's choice to fill her post, her husband Rod. The vote came during a Saturday morning emergency meeting of District 2 county delegates.

McCoy says the fact he is gay wasn't the primary reason he was picked and he promises not to be a single-issue senator.

"I represent probably one of the most diverse constituencies in the Senate," he said. "I'm committed to doing my level best to represent not only gays and lesbians, but all people."

He also vowed to continue Julander's push to require insurance companies to cover contraceptives in prescription plans and to fight for issues such as a hate-crimes law.

Gayle Ruzicka, founder of the conservative Eagle Forum, called the choice "very interesting."

"That gives us two people [in the Legislature] living that lifestyle," she said. But "he and Paula probably vote the same, so at the end of the day it probably won't make a difference."

When told McCoy had been elected, Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who pushed the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, asked, "The gay?"

Buttars then said he didn't want to comment.

McCoy's election comes as a surprise to many Democratic leaders. Senate minority leaders and all elected House Democrats had publicly backed Rod Julander for the seat. Still, state Democratic Party Chairman Donald Dunn said McCoy will be welcomed.

"We'll do some fence-mending," Dunn said.

Rod Julander says he and his wife were "disappointed" in the outcome, but that they would continue to be involved in politics. "We're taking it well," Rod Julander said, noting that his wife had "wanted it very badly" to go to him. Paula Julander, who suffers from an internal inflammation called diverticulitis, came home Saturday from the hospital.

"What she is upset about is that she had supported [gay-rights] issues and then they organized to defeat her candidate," Rod Julander said.

Rep. Jackie Biskupski, a Democrat from Salt Lake City and until now the only openly gay legislator, had also backed Rod Julander.

But she said it would be nice to have another voice on the Hill for gay issues.

"I welcome the help, that's for sure," she said. "And I welcome having that on the Senate side."

Of course, chances are it will be a difficult transition for McCoy.

Soon after Biskupski was elected, some lawmakers wouldn't even look at her. She says things are changing now, but McCoy will still face challenges.

"It'll be hard at first for Scott, there's no doubt," she said.

Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, was surprised as well that delegates didn't choose Rod Julander. "I wouldn't have expected that," Valentine said. But "we're excited to get our new senator to work and have him join the body on Monday."

Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, shared in Valentine's surprise.
"The delegates have spoken and it will be interesting to have him join us," Dmitrich said. "He'll add something to our caucus, that's for sure."
tburr@sltrib.com

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Republicans are now a Southern party, just like the Democrats used to be.

Just last year, I saw a television "tourism" commercial for the state of West Virginia. With the Denver soundtrack of "Almost heaven, West Virginia," playing, a scene appears showing a smiling couple being seated at a fine dining establishment. It's a black guy and a white gal.

If the South ain't what it used to be then being a "Southern Party," in 2004, is meaningless with regards to what it was in 1964. That was my rebuttal to Kaiser's argument, who implies that nothing has changed (and to which you seemed to agree).

If one wishes to demonstrate that being a Southern Party means something tangible, fine, make your case. In the meantime, I'll settle for fact that aside from a few non-political issues, their ain't much different between north and south, or even west, that compares to what drove this nation to war in 1860 (or what MLK faced in 1964).

Except, perhaps, for the Hispanic immigration issue. But we ain't talkin' 'bout that, are we?

Originally Posted by Max

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Nevertheless, what you are saying here is that the south of today is still the south of 1964.

No, that is what you are saying that I am saying. I never said any such thing.

Perfect example of why it's a waste of time to feed the troll. It could even be dangerous. :wink:

Troll? It's been awhile but isn't Mike pretty much smack dab in the middle? Hardly Troll worthy.

Yes, Mike is in the middle. He's not the one being called a troll. It's who Mike is responding to that is being so identified.

Where's Trollking? He always makes me laugh. :lol:

Now that you mention it, he hasn't posted here since December:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...thor=TrollKing

But I'm not worried about him leaving us permanently. I expect him back.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

If one wishes to demonstrate that being a Southern Party means something tangible, fine, make your case.

Foreign policy is a good example. A southern party will lean Jacksonian in foreign policy. They will go to war over honor.

Up until recently, Republicans have been Hamiltonians or realists in foreign policy. Hamiltonians believe in using the power of the state in a limited, cost-effective manner, to further commercial interests. Realist Eisenhower did not feel it was necessary for the US to get involved in shooting wars in order to appear "strong against Communism". Democrats Truman, Kennedy and Johnson felt otherwise. Since the Democrats were still dependent on the South for their status as dominant party, they needed to be willing to fight for our national honor. This wasn't an issue for Dewey, Eisenhower or Nixon.

Reagan did not feel it necessary to get involved in a shooting war over Lebanon or Central America, although it was necessary to be rhetorically tough vis a vis the Soviets. Dubya not only has to talk tough, he has to be willing to fight too.

So where it once was the liberal Democrats who got us into wars, now its going to be the conservative Republicans. Not because of conservative versus liberal ideology, but because of regional culture.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

If one wishes to demonstrate that being a Southern Party means something tangible, fine, make your case.

Foreign policy is a good example. A southern party will lean Jacksonian in foreign policy. They will go to war over honor.

Up until recently, Republicans have been Hamiltonians or realists in foreign policy. Hamiltonians believe in using the power of the state in a limited, cost-effective manner, to further commercial interests. Realist Eisenhower did not feel it was necessary for the US to get involved in shooting wars in order to appear "strong against Communism". Democrats Truman, Kennedy and Johnson felt otherwise. Since the Democrats were still dependent on the South for their status as dominant party, they needed to be willing to fight for our national honor. This wasn't an issue for Dewey, Eisenhower or Nixon.

Reagan did not feel it necessary to get involved in a shooting war over Lebanon or Central America, although it was necessary to be rhetorically tough vis a vis the Soviets. Dubya not only has to talk tough, he has to be willing to fight too.

So where it once was the liberal Democrats who got us into wars, now its going to be the conservative Republicans. Not because of conservative versus liberal ideology, but because of regional culture.

I should remind you that the Dems may be shut out of the South in all other offices but the number 1 liberal in the Senate lost Virginia and North Carolina by about 4 percentage points. Kerry lost Alabama by 20 points, but in neighboring Mississippi he lost by only 7.
Personally i see the greatest regions for improvement being the West. Sure they're not going to crack Idaho, Wyoming, or Utah - but they lost Colorado by only one point (!) in '04.
I guarantee you that if they run someone like Clark or Richardson in '08 - Dems have a real shot at ending GOP dominance in that region.