Rapid Roy tacks to the center, Cowgirl Kay keeps to the right

Kris at The World Around You (4.00 / 1)

Just put up a post on this too, and I think he had it right on Sparks' response - I would love to think it's courageous, because that's the response I want to see, but honestly I feel like he's just making sure he doesn't paint himself into a corner.

---

by: mediagadfly @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 22:38:31 PM CST

Whatever his motivation... (0.00 / 0)

...it was the right answer.

"When you talk about the law discriminating, the law granting a privilege here, and a right here and denying it there, that's a civil rights issue. And I can't take that away from anybody." - Rev. Joseph Lowery

---

by: rudyinbama @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:18:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it's a case (0.00 / 0)

Where we should reward good behavior, never mind the motivation.

Can I get an Amen?

Or at least a Ha-Rumph!

"The War in Iraq is not the disease. The War in Iraq is a symptom. Arrogance is the disease" - Bill Richardson

---

by: herding old cats @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 05:30:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ha- Rumph (0.00 / 0)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke

---

by: Old Prosecutor @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:31:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Amen and Amen. (0.00 / 0)

Ha-Rumph and Ha-Rump!

And a big fist dap to you hoc for being the voice of reason.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 15:09:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Even as an atheist (0.00 / 0)

I think motivation is paramount. On this, I just have to wait and see what he does if it comes up again. If he's consistent and takes a principled stand, more power to him, and I hope that's what he does. 

---

by: mediagadfly @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:25:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mostly (0.00 / 0)

I just want someone to push back and say 'why the hell are you even asking me these questions?'

So you get a half-hearted amen. ;) I understand and mostly agree with what you're saying and the sentiment, but for me personally, just not answering isn't sufficient - I need to know why.

---

by: mediagadfly @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:31:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As much as I would want to think the other way... (0.00 / 0)

...I think this is more of the case.  If Sparks truly wanted not to answer it based upon the fact there is not a religious test, then he should have cited that.  That way, he explicitly states why the question is not important.

However, the fact remains that Sparks not only declined to answer the religious expressions question but the ones regarding abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration.  This raises the question in my mind: is the Sparks campaign strategy to wait for Davis to state a position and then take the opposite position?  And how exactly does this display leadership (which, by the way, is a theme of Sparks campaign)?

---

by: csduke @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:57:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

sparks is a calculating coward (0.00 / 0)

it's not courageous to refuse to talk about religion, it's courageous to be proud of your religion and accepting and tolerant of other beliefs. 

Is it also courageous to refuse to answer questions about abortion or immigration or other public policy issues?

"Sparks, declined to answer questions from the newspaper about religious issues or give his views on abortion, gay marriage or illegal immigration." 

---

by: mikesmith3110 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:02:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not going to follow you on the "calculating coward" part (0.00 / 0)

But the governor's views on abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration are definitely relevant. 

Now 6 months ago I wouldn't have included abortion on that list since Alabama law had been quiet on that front for years, but Rep. Robert Bentley has stirred that pot again and our next governor may have to deal with the fruits of some ugly election year legislation on that issue.  The UAB health benefits controversy clearly indicates same-sex marriage is now a state issue and local governments in Alabama have already been taking up illegal immigration statutes -- look for more of it at the state level in the coming years. 

I'd like some clue of where the candidates stand on these things -- knowing and disagreeing is better than not knowing at all.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 09:24:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bradley Byrne Deserves some Credit (4.00 / 2)

The herding one left out this comment by Bradley Byrne:

"I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not."

I think this is the most intellectually honest answer of the bunch.  Byrne had to know this answer would not win him any friends in the far right of his party; it is an answer that people who really think and examine their faith might give.  This seems to be one area Byrne is not willing to pander to folks with.  It seems like a heartfelt answer.  Maybe because I agree with him and can't think of any reason he would say that and expose himself to the wrath of many in his party if he didn't mean it.

Byrne deserves credit on this one.

---

by: maebabs @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:04:35 AM CST

That is a good response (0.00 / 0)

Certain to be unpopular in fundamentalist circles.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 08:11:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But as Joe Openshaw points out (4.00 / 1)

here,

But Bradley Byrne’s quote was just plain awful. “I think there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not.”

That is precisely the problem, because it allows them to condemn the gays but continue to eat shellfish and wear blended fabric and such.

---

by: Kathy @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 14:28:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Faulty Logic (4.00 / 1)

While it is true people have been picking and choosing verses to justify their views on all kinds of issues, a view that everything in the Bible cannot be taken literally does not equate to hating anyone just as it does not mean that person does not believe Scripture is inspired by God.

Neither is Bradley Byrne's stated position that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman hatespeech.  It seems to be his held belief.  I think we need to be careful demonizing people for their views.  Disagreeing and explaining why we disagree is the way to go. Someone such as Joe would go a lot further rationally explaining why he beliefs someone is condemning gays rather than extrapolating from something that does no such thing, IMHO.

Gosh knows there are enough things out there to jump on Bradley Byrne about and I've touched on a few.  i think we learn something about them from their views when they present them honestly, and I know that's hard to be sure of.  I wish the Press Register had the guts to make the full answers, since they were written, available online or the candidates had the guts to post them on their Web sites.  We probably would have a better picture, even if some of the answers were adjusted by the PR folks. It would be nice if someone could be elected on the real Jesus platform, but that'll never happen, even in the so-called Bible Belt. 

But, these questions don't really get to the essence of a politician's faith.  Guess Rick Warren is the only one with the guts to ask those.

---

by: maebabs @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 06:05:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

maebabs, I don't see where Joe or I categorized anything as "hatespeech" (4.00 / 1)

Is that a new word now?

And this isn't an issue of logic;it's an issue of reality -- politicians who oppose LGBT equality frequently use selected Bible verses to justify their positions while ignoring other Biblical admonitions.  So do average citizens, for that matter.

Here's Byrnes' statement on marriage from his campaign website:

I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman and I have worked to ensure the institution of traditional marriage is well protected in Alabama. When I served in the Senate, I supported a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. While Alabama had a law on the books banning gay marriage, and some argued our amendment was unnecessary, I felt it was important to stand firm and do all we could to protect the institution from the growing threats against it. By writing the protection of traditional marriage into our constitution we took the step needed to ensure that an activist judge could not void the will of the people of Alabama.

As governor, I will continue to fight any effort to legalize and legitimize gay marriage or civil unions.

Note that he states his support for the 2006 constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage from the "growing threats" against it and throws in a swipe at "activist" judges as well. He also states his opposition to any kind of civil union.  I missed the part where he proposed outlawing divorce, which does tend to demonstrate the "picking and choosing" part.

---

by: Kathy @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:37:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ironic he hasn't taken on divorce (0.00 / 0)

You can't get much more threatening to marriage than just undoing it, can you?  It's a viewpoint some religious groups are actually pushing, although Byrne may not be willing to take up the anti-divorce banner.

BTW, do the rest of y'all remember when divorce was an extremely controversial issue, and divorced people -- well, divorced women anyway -- were social outcasts?  Does anyone know what the 1901 Constitution allowed in the way of divorce?

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 11:10:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not as much credit as you think (0.00 / 0)

The Republican Primary will be an urban/suburban primary that will not only draw in the urban moderate Republicans but also urban white Democratic voters who are voting Republican just for local offices in counties like Shelby, Baldwin, Mobile, etc. Byrne's not just planning on Davis being nominee and being able to run on race and trying to tie him to Obama, Byrne's actually anticipating a campaign in which he may have to run against rural heavyweight Sparks and get every metropolitan voter that he can.

Keep in mind that Riley got 66% in the primary even with grassroots anger over his tax plan and Moore's religious protestations. The reason is simple. Rural white voters who were absolutely gaga over Roy Moore, including white rural Republicans, were simply not able to vote for him in 2006 as most of them lived in Democratically controlled counties and those Democratic primaries were going to decide local offices. It's a point I've hit on this site I don't know how many times.

 That remark won't hurt Byrne in the Republican primary because the urban moderates and BCA voters who make up the Republican primary electorate will agree with him and those that disagree with him won't make up a large enough portion of the vote to deny him the nomination. Now, oddly enough, this will hurt him in a general against a more rural oriented candidate (like Sparks who would definitely use it against him) but with Davis, who'll have his own problems with rural voters, it would probably have slim to nil impact.

 So far from being a politically risky statement, considering Byrne it is not only a statement that will have only minor impact given his given strategy and by saying it like that it also blunts any impact that Bill Johnson might have had in siphoning off voters that should be him in the Mobile area. Now, I believe Byrne absolutely believes it. However, it doesn't mean that there wasn't a motive of politcal utility behind the remarks

---

by: jacool @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:32:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why? Why? Why? (0.00 / 0)

 

As a future elected official and potential governor of our Great State, I would expect all the candidates to at least have an opinion.  Why won't Ron Sparks comment on talk about the proposals to criminalize abortions?  Yes, it does matter.  Yes, the governor needs to have an opinion (regardless of whether I agree with it or not).

 

Why is Ron Sparks who now claims to champion the public option refusing to rule out resisting it as governor?

 

I need to know how the candidates feel on issues that do and will impact Alabama.  

 

WHY? WHY? WHY?

 

Does the Sparks campaign have an unwavering solid opinion on anything?

 

---

by: business4usual @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:47:40 AM CST

Constitution Reform (0.00 / 0)

No convention.  That one is pretty damned solid.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:50:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Because Davis has been "rock solid" (0.00 / 0)

in his positions on healthcare, abortion, hate crimes, and climate change.  He has actually been rock solid on one issue: his opposition to equal rights for gay couples.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:27:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Amen. (4.00 / 1)

Seems like opposition to a constitutional convention is the only thing he's made his mind up about.  Everything else he just waffles from one day to the next.  It kinda makes me cringe.  Like "oohhh Ron, be careful, don't slip and fall on that slippery step.  We don't want to see you bust a knee again!"

---

by: BurbLife @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:55:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Get Real (0.00 / 0)

Is this what we’re going to see – no matter what issue, endless attacks on Sparks’s character by Davis supporters?

 

This blog is titled “Left in Alabama.” Shouldn’t we be discussing issues from at least a progressive if not even an actual left standpoint?

 

Here we have the Press-Register asking about prayer in school when we ought to be focused on the state’s horrendous dropout rate.

 

The only good thing about the question, is Ivey and Potts volunteered to reveal themselves as ignorant bigots. They should be rewarded with pickets every time they appear in a major city and local TV/newspaper coverage of even the one local Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or Pagan whose faith has been slandered.

 

Reacting to blatant bigotry by rolling our eyes as if the crazy aunt in the attic has escaped again will never change the ignorant culture holding this state back.

"When you talk about the law discriminating, the law granting a privilege here, and a right here and denying it there, that's a civil rights issue. And I can't take that away from anybody." - Rev. Joseph Lowery

---

by: rudyinbama @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 14:21:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What is the progressive stance on this issue? (0.00 / 0)

In your opinion, I mean. 

Personally, I think inclusion of any and all religions in public displays is fairly progressive, way more so that what we typically see in Alabama now. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 14:52:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Either is OK (0.00 / 0)

Reminding people that there should be no religious test for government and going along with established rulings by the Supreme Court are both valid answers. But let’s not fall into the trap of calling what amounts to the general understanding of constitutional law in any of the saner parts of the country “left” or even “progressive.” 

It’s basic citizenship and simply “normal.”

 

Ignoring larger issues and turning this into an imagined Sparks/Davis defining moment is simply petty. If we continue down this road all the way to the primaries, it’s going to be very difficult to come together as needed in November.

"When you talk about the law discriminating, the law granting a privilege here, and a right here and denying it there, that's a civil rights issue. And I can't take that away from anybody." - Rev. Joseph Lowery

---

by: rudyinbama @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 15:23:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's slightly left in Alabama rudy (0.00 / 0)

Isn't it ironic those who expose and talk about the blatant bigotry/racism/hypocrisy/democratic principles and values  are called the "crazy aunt and banished to the attic" and those who do the opposite are promoted and called "viable candidates"? 

I see you've noticed too Davis supporters can't support Davis without bashing Sparks and Sparks supporters and the undecideded.

I'm just saying

Redeye, tiptoeing on back up to the attack......Carry On.

The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die.~Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D. MA)

---

by: Redeye @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 15:17:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Byrne also added: (4.00 / 1)

"it is unimportant whether some details of the Bible, such as people living for hundreds of years, are factually correct."

I think that points to the meaning of his other statement.

---

by: drreed1057 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:25:08 PM CST

Also (4.00 / 1)

Just to throw down some ~fair and balanced~ atheist-inspired haterade about this entire questionaire, the 'divinely-inspired intelligent design' theory doesn't sit well with me either. Because it's creationism in a cheap suit, and pretty much confirms that you're still happily to the right on any issues that may possibly be tied to the Bible at some point. (Apologies to Richard Dawkins - I think.) 

If Ron Sparks isn't going to answer those questions, I want to know why. I'm glad he didn't answer them. I don't think it's anybody's business what your beliefs are - because they shouldn't play a role in how you govern. But I want to know that's the reason he's not answering. Otherwise I'm just going to find the whole thing suspect. 

I wouldn't trust any politician - unless they had a consistent record on not answering on principle - who didn't answer those questions. And it sucks, because I really don't want to have to EXPECT answers to those questions, or feel like I need them. But I do, so it's personally just going to drive me nuts til I know why he did it.

I'd fire off an e-mail to the campaign, but at the same time I don't feel like it's something they deserve to be badgered about. So it's a self-perpetuating cycle of frustration. 

---

by: mediagadfly @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:44:46 PM CST

Its not politically advantageous to do it now (0.00 / 0)

Those remarks only become important if Bradley Byrne loses the primary. Right now, GOP primary demographics favor Byrne, the GOP machinery/Riley people are behind Byrne and most of the big money (save Tim James) is behind Byrne.

 If Byrne loses the primary none of this matters. If he wins, it matters on who his opponent is. Artur Davis will simply lose a predetermined number of rural whites just based on being Artur Davis. No way around that. Now, for him, he could definitely strike back at Byrne by highlighting this quote but if he does the trade off might be that he'll lose liberals and moderates in metro areas.

 Now for Sparks, whose campaign is one of a rural Populism and whose winning map would be similar to 2006, if he gets in the race against Byrne this makes a very good push poll to use against him in normally Democratic and economically populist North Alabama. See how John Tyson did against Troy King in normally Democratic all-white Evangelical areas of the state. Troy King ran subliminally against Tyson being a "Mobile candidate" and Sparks would have the opening to do the same thing and highlighting the fact that Byrne is an upper class non-Protestant from South Alabama would pay great political dividends in North Alabama just as it did when those voters had the same image of Tyson.

 I am actually convinced that Siegelman was only able to have political success is because he started in state politics in a time when sectional division was not as high (as everyone was a Wallace person then) and because he made enough of a name for himself that when that started to end he had a good record. I kind of wonder if he would have been able to be as successful had he started in 1988 and not 1978.

---

by: jacool @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:40:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I've given this a lot of thought (0.00 / 0)

24 hours worth, to be exact.  Last night I thought herding old cats was being way too charitable in saying Sparks' lack of response was the more courageous road.  I've followed the comments today and I still think it's an extremely charitable reading of the situation.

How low are we going to set the bar for Sparks?  We don't know why he declined to answer ... Principle?  No formal position yet?  Never got the message? ... We just don't know.  If Bradley Byrne declined to answer would we call him courageous?  I doubt it.

From a purely political point of view, not answering questions like this has been tried and I don't think it's been very effective for Democrats.  It's always better to make an intelligent response that conveys your honest views -- even if it doesn't completely address the question -- than to just try and stonewall.  People respect honesty, they are suspicious of anything that suggests evasion. 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 22:46:54 PM CST

It should not matter why he did not answer... (0.00 / 0)

it doesn't matter if he didn't answer because he was a Wiccan, or because he's a Christian with a slightly different interpretation of some issues than most folks, or because he's a Christian and he believes these questions are ridiculous.  Look at these responses - every single answer has pissed off someone.  And if you extrapolated that statewide, every single answer has probably pissed off a whole lot of different people.  This is the exact reason why the founders explicitly stated they did not want a "religious test" for elected officials.  Artur Davis answered the question in as diplomatic a way as possible, but the plain fact is that the question never should have been asked.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 08:38:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I know a Wiccan who could give a good answer to the question about public displays or evolution (0.00 / 0)

And I still think every campaign needs to develop an honest response to questions about religious beliefs -- it will come up and effectively saying "it's none of your business" is going to turn off more people than an honest assessment of your beliefs, even if you are somewhat out of the mainstream.  Religion is an important part of life in the South and you just have to be prepared to speak to it. 

I see this as related to the problem of "Democrats don't stand for anything" that we've heard so much from the other side.  Why can they so easily convince people we don't stand for anything?  Because too often our messengers are coy about their personal beliefs, apparently trying to be all things to all people, alienating no one but also revealing nothing about their value system or what makes them tick.  Define yourself or be defined by your opponent.  Issues may matter, but in the end trust is a major factor in who people decide to vote for.  

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 10:56:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You guys have become so single-minded... (0.00 / 0)

in your assertion that everything Artur Davis does is brilliant and that everything Ron Sparks does is either wrong or dishonest that you are have forgotten the importance of Constitutional values.  I certainly believe every single politician who wants to volunteer their personal religious beliefs ought to do so, but no one should ever feel any obligation, political or otherwise, to do so.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:56:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're misrepresenting my position (4.00 / 1)

The Constitution does not require a political candidate to tell voters anything at all, but when you run for office you are putting yourself forward to the public and ought to be prepared to reveal some information about yourself.  It's purely common sense that if you want someone to support you, they need to know who you are and what you believe.  In the South, religion is very important to a large segment of the populace; if you want to win you're going to have to talk about it.

I don't assert that anyone is under an obligation to answer questions about religious beliefs, but candidates need to realize that those questions are going to be asked -- you and I may not ask them, but the traditional media like the PR will and they'll definitely come up at campaign stops -- and as a practical matter candidates need to be prepared to answer them.

Asking a candidate's position on religious displays in government buildings is not a bad question -- the subject has come up in Alabama government recently.  We may view the creation or evolution question as a gotcha for liberals, but wouldn't you want to know if a candidate did not believe in evolution?  It would color my opinion of his or her fitness for office, for sure.  And abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration are absolutely fair topics -- the governor is likely to have to deal with those issues.

 

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 14:27:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Religious questions are a different animal... (0.00 / 0)

Political issues aren't directly referenced but a religious test is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.  Ostensibly, the article was about their views on religious displays on public property - which is inappropriate enough - but the author used that topic to ask a specific question about candidates' beliefs on the truth of the Bible.  I don't think that question has any place in American politics.  That is the definition of a religious test.

---

by: bluebearcat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:15:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You really need to take that gripe up with the Press Register (0.00 / 0)

Or better yet, write a post about what constitutes a religious test and the media's insistence upon asking questions about religion that you think cross the Constitutional line.

Meanwhile, my point remains: When someone asks you (as a candidate) one of those questions, you need to have a better answer than "no comment."  Maybe that answer includes a quote from the US Constitution, or maybe it is just a plain statement of your belief, but if you want to make points with voters you darned sure need to have an answer.  That's my opinion, worth the price charged.

Work harder and work smarter!

---

by: mooncat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 16:14:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

watch the generalizations, please! (4.00 / 1)

assertion that everything Artur Davis does is brilliant

what?

Both Davis & Sparks get kicked around here.  I've done it with both of them. 

Pats on the back when deserved.  Kicks in the pants also when deserved is my rule.

I used to get really irritated back in the spring and summer when I'd write a postive Sparks diary and get ZERO response.  But any Davis diary was swarmed by both pro and anti-Davis comments. 

That's the nature of blogging, but then to later read complaints that LIA was all-Davis all the time was more than a little frustrating.

For instance:

Sparks Details Education Lottery Plan in Huntsville: 4 comments

Ron Sparks on Broadband & PSC Oversight:  5 comments

Ron Sparks Releases Study on Rural Schools in Alabama: 10 comments

Ron Sparks Launches Farmers at Work Campaign to Make Roads Safer: 1 comment

Alabama Broadband Initiative - Ron Sparks Asking the Right Questions: 11 comments

Granted, some of the diaries like farmer safety may have been of limited interest, but that was during a time when we couldn't even get return phone calls or emails from Sparks' campaign because it was just coming together.   I had to literally comb through our "Alabama Farmers and Consumers' Bulletin" to look for stuff to write about.

It was a time when Sparks' supporters really needed to jump in and write about why they liked him as a candidate, but we couldn't get anyone interested in doing that.

I'd rather see much more positive stuff about Democratic candidates instead of snarkiness towards their opponents.  But again, when our candidates disappoint us, it's important to speak up and NOT give them a pass.

 

I'm not short.  I'm fun size!!

---

by: countrycat @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:00:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is an example where Democrats need to define themselves (4.00 / 1)

One of the problems of the Democratic party over the past couple of decades is that they will avoid answering quesitons like this.  Is the question relevant?  Yes and no.  No, there should not be a religious test.  However, who knows the standard that voters use to judge and select candidates that they will support.

One of the problems is that the Democratic party has avoided religious questions where they can be portrayed as anti-religious.  Though this is hardly true, the stereotype sticks.  The only way to avoid being labeled as antireligious is to be forthright in defining ourselves, including addressing issues of religion and other "values".  And in this state, voters raise this question.

In Alabama, if the definition that Republicans gives Democrats sticsk, then we lose elections (usually, this includes liberal tax and spend, antireligious, linked to the national party, corrupt.)  However, if we are able to define who we are and make that definition stick, then we can win elections.

---

by: csduke @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:17:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, that would be nice (0.00 / 0)

However, how would they do that in this state politically?  If Alabama was a more of a state like North Carolina, which suffers from the same "vote Democrat locally but votes Republican nationally electoral pattern" along with a Democrat-majority State Assembly (legislature), and had that very educated and huge inflow of out-of-state young professionals then we could do that.  BUT we are not, so Alabama Democrats gotta find moderate and pragmatic middle ground overall, but allows individual candidates make their own image know anyway possible. 

IMHO, there is room in the Alabama Democratic Party for more moderate and progressive politicos, but the real question is how long will it take for them to get elected in the larger urban areas of the state?

"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

---

by: kayman @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 19:14:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

AH! (0.00 / 0)

When ideology and partisanship intersects.  This was what I call a "straw grabber" more than soothsayer questionaire.  Those who want to criticize will criticize and those that want to give their thumbs-up will give it. 

Oh yeah, what I've learned from political science and psychology studies is that people who usually aren't as "undecided" as they claim, rather just looking for an additional reasons to confirm their dislike or like about a candidate(s)...

"Hypocrites are those whom pick and choose prejudices while giving accolades for their own..."

"It is what it is."  

http://blkindependent.blogspot...

---

by: kayman @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 18:56:02 PM CST