Nixon’s bigger crime: Southern strategy
What Is the Southern Strategy?
Salon on The Southern Strategy
Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy (this advice is still being used by the GOP & Fox News today!)
The Southern Strategy as applied today can be summarized as "It's not us it's the black/colored guy". In other words;
Southern Strategy: Taking one or more words or sentences out of context and building a whole case on this.
Notice, in the following video, the joke about "Nanci Pelosi eating babies"... that how the Southern Strategy Works... whatever you can accuse an opponent of works if you repeat it enough times & by enough people;
Southern Strategy In Satire...
Notice, in the following video, the joke about "Nanci Pelosi eating babies"... that how the Southern Strategy Works... whatever you can accuse an opponent of works if you repeat it enough times & by enough people;
Southern Strategy In Satire...
Notice how the Republican party changed strategy in which changed thier focus from the North to the South. When the GOP changed it's strategy to be racist THAT was when the people in the South & Midwest joined it. In other words, the Republicans of the South actually Democrats of the South in the past (i.e. same beliefs and political strategies)
Southern Strategy explained plain and simple by WiseGeek.com:
The Southern Strategy is the policy of the Republican Party in the United States to gain political support in the Southern section of the country. Politically, the concept generally uses themes traditionally supported by residents of the Southern states to win election in those locations. Since segregation continued well into the late 20th century in the region, the Republican Party officially attempted to utilize this wedge issue as a way of garnering support for their political faction in these states. In addition to the issue of segregation between white residents and African Americans, the party also utilized Southern values of religion, gun control and a distrust of counterculture to win votes.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the Republican Party generally opposed desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement. This stance caused a major shift in the voting practices of the African American community to the support of the Democratic Party, the faction which helped legislate laws such as the Voting Rights Act. Party officials, specifically President Richard Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, understood that in order for the Republicans to win the Southern states, they needed to focus their attention on the Caucasian population.
The implementation of the Southern Strategy by the Republican Party represented a major shift in political power in the region. Since the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the primary force in the South due to its support of the region during Reconstruction. In addition, the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was seen as the primary instigator of the war by most Southern residents. Between the 1950s and the early 1980s, the South shifted to major support for the Republicans. At the same time, much of the North and the West became a major supporter of Democrats.
Despite the Republican shift, by the end of the 20th century, it was generally understood that the South had lost its importance as a major prize in presidential and national elections. Without a majority of electoral votes or heavy populations, the power distribution of the constituency moved to the Northeast, California, and Texas. According to the results of the elections since 1984, every president elected would have taken office regardless of the South's votes.
During the 1990s and early 21st century, the concept of the Southern Strategy focused less on the region known as the “Bible Belt” and more on a general principle. Using wedge issues such as family values, abortion and threats to gun ownership, both parties attempt to segment their ideology to different sides. Voters during this time period followed suit, making the factors involving leadership and legislation secondary to candidates positions on the wedge issues. The Republicans use the conservative principles of the Southern Strategy on a nationwide level to help generate support in new regions of the country.
Related:
Pat Buchanan resurfaces to demand GOP embrace new Southern Strategy
Southern Strategy explained plain and simple by WiseGeek.com:
The Southern Strategy is the policy of the Republican Party in the United States to gain political support in the Southern section of the country. Politically, the concept generally uses themes traditionally supported by residents of the Southern states to win election in those locations. Since segregation continued well into the late 20th century in the region, the Republican Party officially attempted to utilize this wedge issue as a way of garnering support for their political faction in these states. In addition to the issue of segregation between white residents and African Americans, the party also utilized Southern values of religion, gun control and a distrust of counterculture to win votes.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the Republican Party generally opposed desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement. This stance caused a major shift in the voting practices of the African American community to the support of the Democratic Party, the faction which helped legislate laws such as the Voting Rights Act. Party officials, specifically President Richard Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, understood that in order for the Republicans to win the Southern states, they needed to focus their attention on the Caucasian population.
The implementation of the Southern Strategy by the Republican Party represented a major shift in political power in the region. Since the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the primary force in the South due to its support of the region during Reconstruction. In addition, the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln was seen as the primary instigator of the war by most Southern residents. Between the 1950s and the early 1980s, the South shifted to major support for the Republicans. At the same time, much of the North and the West became a major supporter of Democrats.
Despite the Republican shift, by the end of the 20th century, it was generally understood that the South had lost its importance as a major prize in presidential and national elections. Without a majority of electoral votes or heavy populations, the power distribution of the constituency moved to the Northeast, California, and Texas. According to the results of the elections since 1984, every president elected would have taken office regardless of the South's votes.
During the 1990s and early 21st century, the concept of the Southern Strategy focused less on the region known as the “Bible Belt” and more on a general principle. Using wedge issues such as family values, abortion and threats to gun ownership, both parties attempt to segment their ideology to different sides. Voters during this time period followed suit, making the factors involving leadership and legislation secondary to candidates positions on the wedge issues. The Republicans use the conservative principles of the Southern Strategy on a nationwide level to help generate support in new regions of the country.
Related:
Pat Buchanan resurfaces to demand GOP embrace new Southern Strategy
Basically the Southern Strategy is to say something, anything, and that is believed. For example the following image is a boat floating above the water? For many GOP followers this would be enough proof for evidence of an Obama Muslim Flying Ship Conspiracy. No joke.
Notes/Summary:
1. Republican 'purity test' is basically 'anti-Obama',
2. Republicans believe unsubstantiated rumors,
3. No compromise on the debt ceiling,
1. Republican 'purity test' is basically 'anti-Obama',
2. Republicans believe unsubstantiated rumors,
3. No compromise on the debt ceiling,
Notice Michael Steel's use of the word 'establishment republicans' and that there was a change in republican party from the 1850s (from individuals to institutions)... i.e. the official (or rather unofficial) party direction is to help business over the individual which, over time, naturally came to be corporations. That's how the republican party became what it is today (also read True Republicanism) 2. Stephen Colbert, "Unsubstantiated rumors about people you don't support become majority beliefs"
Proof - Article Extract: To get to the data, our April 20-23 USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 9% of all Americans say that Obama was “definitely” not born in the U.S. Another 15% say that Obama was “probably” not born in the U.S. That’s about a quarter of the U.S. adult population, 24% who have doubts about Obama's being "natural born," the constitutional requirement for a president. That contrasts with 38% of Americans who say Obama was “definitely” born in the U.S. and another 18% who say he was “probably” born in the U.S. Another 20% said that they didn’t know enough to say or refused to answer.Who were those 24% who suspect Obama was not born in the U.S.? Beliefs about Obama's birthplace are certainly related to education . Although 13% of those with post-graduate educations say that Obama was probably or definitely not born in the U.S., that’s half the 28% of those with some college and 26% of those with only a high school education or less who believe Obama was not native born. Beliefs about Obama’s birth are strongly related to partisanship: 43% of Republicans say that Obama was not born in the U.S., including 15% who are definite in their beliefs and another 28% who say “probably.” Of some concern to the White House and Obama’s 2012 re-election strategists is the fact that 20% of independents believe Obama was probably or definitely not born in the U.S. Nine percent of Democrats agree. Naturally enough, this partisanship connection means there is a connection between beliefs in Obama's place of birth and intent to vote for Obama. Seventy-five percent of registered voters who say Obama was born in U.S. would consider voting for him. Fifteen percent of those who say he was not born in the U.S. would consider voting for Obama, while 85% say they definitely would not.
Proof - Article Extract: To get to the data, our April 20-23 USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 9% of all Americans say that Obama was “definitely” not born in the U.S. Another 15% say that Obama was “probably” not born in the U.S. That’s about a quarter of the U.S. adult population, 24% who have doubts about Obama's being "natural born," the constitutional requirement for a president. That contrasts with 38% of Americans who say Obama was “definitely” born in the U.S. and another 18% who say he was “probably” born in the U.S. Another 20% said that they didn’t know enough to say or refused to answer.Who were those 24% who suspect Obama was not born in the U.S.? Beliefs about Obama's birthplace are certainly related to education . Although 13% of those with post-graduate educations say that Obama was probably or definitely not born in the U.S., that’s half the 28% of those with some college and 26% of those with only a high school education or less who believe Obama was not native born. Beliefs about Obama’s birth are strongly related to partisanship: 43% of Republicans say that Obama was not born in the U.S., including 15% who are definite in their beliefs and another 28% who say “probably.” Of some concern to the White House and Obama’s 2012 re-election strategists is the fact that 20% of independents believe Obama was probably or definitely not born in the U.S. Nine percent of Democrats agree. Naturally enough, this partisanship connection means there is a connection between beliefs in Obama's place of birth and intent to vote for Obama. Seventy-five percent of registered voters who say Obama was born in U.S. would consider voting for him. Fifteen percent of those who say he was not born in the U.S. would consider voting for Obama, while 85% say they definitely would not.
The following Rush Limbaugh example shows that there is literally a market for stereotypes and bigotry with an angry tone (a 'self-righteousness') and that he is either still on drugs or he is in need of psychiatric care...
A real-life murder mystery and courtroom drama makes for a page-turning indictment of the death penalty
The story begins with the discovery of a body in 1982: Handsome, well-off Dorothy Edwards, a 76-year-old widow and resident of rural Greenwood, S.C., who “could have passed for 56.” Her battered corpse was found in her closet by a neighbor. He helpfully pointed out to the police a beeping alarm clock, a full pot of automatically brewed coffee and an open copy of TV guide — all conspicuously pointing to a time of death — before suggesting that the 23-year-old man who’d recently washed Edwards’ windows seemed a likely culprit. Within days, the police had arrested Edward Lee Elmore, a soft-spoken, docile laborer of very limited intelligence, with the feeblest excuse for probable cause: Edwards had written Elmore a check and one of his fingerprints was found on the windows she’d paid him to clean. Do I even need to tell you that Edwards was white and Elmore black? After that came a mockery of criminal investigation followed by a mockery of justice. The police failed to photograph the bed where they claimed Edwards had been brutally raped or to retain the bedsheets as evidence. Other evidence passed through an unusually large number of hands (some of them unaffiliated with the investigation), or disappeared and then eventually reappeared (or not). No one bothered to check out that so-helpful neighbor who discovered the body and recommended a suspect. The medical examiner delivered a convenient but highly improbable time of death in a report that an expert would later liken to the work of a “first-year intern.” As for the public defenders initially assigned to Elmore’s case, one was a racist who referred to his client as “a red-headed nigger.” The other was, in the words of a detective convinced of Elmore’s guilt, “drunk through the whole trial.” The judge made no secret of wishing to wrap things up quickly. He allowed the father of a prosecutor’s best friend to sit on the jury and incorrectly informed the jurors that those who didn’t support the death penalty were obligated to recuse themselves. He also plainly indicated that he considered Elmore to be guilty. The locally powerful lead prosecutor engaged in a colorful array of misconduct. In a week, Elmore was sentenced to death. Elmore’s advocates succeeded in overturning his conviction twice. He was awarded two additional trials. In the first he was assigned the same incompetent defense attorneys (Bonner describes it as a “video replay” of the original trial) and in the second (which was allowed to contest the sentencing only) a committed but inexperience defender was unable to outwit a wily, unscrupulous prosecutor to mitigate the penalty. Elmore’s case changed that young lawyer’s views on capital punishment by showing him a legal system plagued by outright finagling: “not human error,” he told Bonner, “but human manipulation … We don’t have the right as a civilized society to pass this judgment.” Eventually, Elmore’s case came to the South Carolina Death Penalty Resource Center and Diana Holt, a freshly minted attorney at age 36. Holt had overcome a childhood and youth marred by sexual abuse, drugs and divorce. She was convinced of Elmore’s innocence and the further she and her colleagues pursued inquiries that should have been made by his original defense team, the more convinced they became. Bonner is clear that most convicts on death row are guilty; at issue is not whether they committed the crime, but whether mitigating circumstances — in particular, mental deficiency — argue for life without parole. That death sentences will be appealed is taken for granted, but what Bonner underlines is the institutional defensiveness and inertia that makes those sentences so difficult to overturn. South Carolina judges were extremely reluctant to admit that South Carolina state attorneys and law enforcement could be negligent or deceitful, or their fellow judges remiss. A state attorney (like the one assigned to Elmore’s appeal) might one day expound on a prosecutor’s solemn duty to pursue justice not just victories, then battle fiercely to uphold a conviction even he can see is unjust. Perhaps most appalling to the average citizen, the emergence of persuasive evidence of innocence after a conviction is often irrelevant to the appeals process. A condemned man’s defenders must instead rely on persuading judges that his constitutional rights were violated during his arrest or trial. “Innocence alone does not entitle a defendant to a new trial,” Bonner explains. While there are good reasons for this principle, it has led to such grotesqueries as a state lawyer arguing before the Missouri Supreme Court that an innocent man ought to be executed even if the court found “absolute” evidence exonerating him of the crime. (To their credit, the justices on that court ruled that “It is difficult to imagine a more manifestly unjust and unconstitutional result than permitting the execution of an innocent person.” Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court apparently disagree.)
Another victim of the South: Troy Davis .
A typical Southern Case:
UPDATE 3:25 p.m. EDT: The Mississippi Supreme Court has granted a stay of execution in the Willie Manning case.
The state of Mississippi is preparing to execute an African-American prisoner tonight, despite an unusual admission from the FBI that its original analysis of the evidence contained errors. Willie Jerome Manning was convicted of murdering Jon Steckler and Tiffany Miller, two white college students, in 1992. The execution is going ahead after prosecutors and state courts refused to allow new DNA testing that could prove Manning’s innocence. The Justice Department sent a letter saying one analyst’s testimony at trial "exceeded the limits of the science and was, therefore, invalid." Manning’s attorneys argue that no physical evidence ties him to the murders and that testing hair samples and other evidence could identify a different killer. But in a 5-to-4 decision last month, Mississippi’s state Supreme Court refused to grant a new DNA test, citing what it called "conclusive, overwhelming evidence of guilt." On top of the denied DNA test, Manning’s attorneys say prosecutors relied on two key witnesses whose credibility has since come under question. Concerns have also been raised about alleged racial bias in the selection of the jury that found Manning guilty. "We need someone to step in," says Vanessa Potkin, a senior staff attorney at the Innocence Project. "It is unconscionable that an execution would go forward where there is biological evidence that can cut to the truth and show whether or not he did the crime. What is anybody afraid of?"
The state of Mississippi is preparing to execute an African-American prisoner tonight, despite an unusual admission from the FBI that its original analysis of the evidence contained errors. Willie Jerome Manning was convicted of murdering Jon Steckler and Tiffany Miller, two white college students, in 1992. The execution is going ahead after prosecutors and state courts refused to allow new DNA testing that could prove Manning’s innocence. The Justice Department sent a letter saying one analyst’s testimony at trial "exceeded the limits of the science and was, therefore, invalid." Manning’s attorneys argue that no physical evidence ties him to the murders and that testing hair samples and other evidence could identify a different killer. But in a 5-to-4 decision last month, Mississippi’s state Supreme Court refused to grant a new DNA test, citing what it called "conclusive, overwhelming evidence of guilt." On top of the denied DNA test, Manning’s attorneys say prosecutors relied on two key witnesses whose credibility has since come under question. Concerns have also been raised about alleged racial bias in the selection of the jury that found Manning guilty. "We need someone to step in," says Vanessa Potkin, a senior staff attorney at the Innocence Project. "It is unconscionable that an execution would go forward where there is biological evidence that can cut to the truth and show whether or not he did the crime. What is anybody afraid of?"
The Word - Dressed to Kill Florida's Stand Your Ground law leads to the shooting death of teen Trayvon Martin, but top legal minds have other ideas about where to place blame:
Notes:
1:00: Zimmerman says he saw a suspicious black man and decided to follow (despite being told NOT to)
At 1 min 17 seconds: Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because he wouldn't look like him? That just nonsense." Newt Gingrich March
23, 2012 On "The Sean Hannity Show"The above is literally the stupidest attack on anyone I have ever seen. But some people in the South will still believe such non-nonsensical statements because it's said by a white guy against a black guy.
Zimmerman shot Martin and wasn't arrested thanks to Florida's new Stand Your Ground Law which allows people to use deadly force as long as they BELIEVE thier safety was in danger (supreme court witness case) Problem with this law is that without witnesses you have to take the shooters word for it i.e. a case of he said, he dead.
1:00: Zimmerman says he saw a suspicious black man and decided to follow (despite being told NOT to)
At 1 min 17 seconds: Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK because he wouldn't look like him? That just nonsense." Newt Gingrich March
23, 2012 On "The Sean Hannity Show"The above is literally the stupidest attack on anyone I have ever seen. But some people in the South will still believe such non-nonsensical statements because it's said by a white guy against a black guy.
Zimmerman shot Martin and wasn't arrested thanks to Florida's new Stand Your Ground Law which allows people to use deadly force as long as they BELIEVE thier safety was in danger (supreme court witness case) Problem with this law is that without witnesses you have to take the shooters word for it i.e. a case of he said, he dead.
Related Blog Posts:
Analysis Of The Zimmerman Trial & Fox News Hypnosis
Update March 10: For Contextual Analysis:
Famous Speeches: To Kill a Mockingbird
All Men Are Created Equal - To Kill a Mockingbird (6/10) Movie CLIP (1962) HD
Kids recreate the court room scene in To Kill A Mockingbird
No comments:
Post a Comment