West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Former President Bill Clinton campaigns for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Chesapeake, W.Va. Wednesday, March 26, 2008.(AP Photo/Bob Bird)
Bill Clinton was in West Virginia earlier this week. Here's a quick round-up of press coverage.
With West Virginia among eight remaining primary contests, former President Bill Clinton blasted critics who say his wife should quit the race for party unity.
Clinton told crowds in Parkersburg, Chesapeake and Beckley that complaints about the divisiveness of the Democrats' long-running primary contest are overblown.
"Let's saddle up and have an argument," he told an audience of hundreds in Parkersburg. "What's wrong with that?"
[snip]
Bill Clinton, the last Democrat to win West Virginia's electoral votes in a presidential contest, played on the crowds' blue collar sympathies by calling his wife's critics in the party "glitterati" and "elites."
[snip]
"When Hillary's gaining on him, they say, Oh, let's shut this down, let's not be divided," he said. "Don't you think your vote ought to count as much as the votes of people in Iowa?"
Obama holds a 1,603-to-1,497 lead in overall delegates for the nomination. The race is so close that the party's "superdelegates" -- hundreds of high-ranking Democrats assured a vote at the convention -- could swing the nomination to either candidate.
[snip]
But Clinton told crowds they shouldn't vote for his wife based on his administration, but should take into account her plans for the country.
"It's not just my record, it's Hillary's conviction," he said.
Clinton touted his wife's proposals on the economy, health care, education and the war in Iraq. With coal trucks driving by outside his Chesapeake stop, he made the same pitch for developing clean coal technology that he made in Parkersburg and Beckley.
Saying clean coal technology could be exported to major coal-burning countries like China and India, Clinton insisted he makes the same pitch in non-coal states like California.
"This is a way we can save the planet and bring good jobs back to West Virginia," he told a cheering Beckley audience.
It was standing room only inside the Chesapeake Community Center as hundreds gathered to get up close and personal with a former President.
"Folks I like West Virginia and I'm glad to be back. I want to begin by saying how grateful I am to the people of this state for giving me a chance to serve as President in 1992 and 1996. Thank you for voting for me," said Clinton just after he reached the podium.
[snip]
Most of his message centered on senior citizens - the fastest growing segment of the country's population.
"Hillary will support policies to help more and more of our seniors to live independently including having someone come in and help them a few hours a day," Clinton told the crowd.
[snip]
In a small town like Chesapeake, visits from former Presidents are certainly few and far between and for some, Bill Clinton's stop here created memories that will last a lifetime.
Former President Bill Clinton found a supportive crowd at Chesapeake's senior center on Wednesday, telling a packed house his wife can defeat Republican John McCain and she can change the health-care system.
"She will be the next president of the United States if you nominate her," the former president said during one of his three stops in West Virginia on Wednesday, campaigning for his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in her presidential effort.
[snip]
"This thing is a long way from over," he said.
[snip]
"The political elite have danced on her grave already two or three times," Clinton said to the crowd of about 600 people inside the center.
While there were earlier calls for her to abandon race, the former president said no one should expect that.
"My family's not big on quitting, you probably noticed that," he said.
Clinton also said his wife will take on big drug companies and ensure health care for every person.
"This is the only rich country on the face of the earth that hasn't figured out how to do it," he noted.
Update: In a nearby region of Pa. Bill Clinton had this to say in a visit yesterday:
In a brief speech outside St. Joseph Catholic Church, Clinton told the throngs that his wife supports investments in clean-coal technology in hard-hit coal states like Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.
Like many towns in the coal region, Girardville, population 1,800, has struggled to recover economically from the demise of widescale anthracite mining.
"If we led the world to the moon, we ought to be able to lead the world to clean coal," Clinton said. "I know a certain candidate who is absolutely committed to that."
I think it's safe to say that Hillary and Obama are going to be competing in Pa. and W.Va. over who is more pro-coal, not who is more firmly grounded in reality.
I apologize for any typos or other errors in advance.
I believe that most people who view Modern America, or know me personally, would assume that I am a supporter of John Edwards. While I admire Senator Edwards, I am a fan of Hillary Clinton. I am confident in the experience that Hillary has, and I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would surround herself with competent and intelligent appointees if given the opportunity to be president of the United States; given these conditions I'm confident in her leadership. Needless to say, after watching the Iowa caucuses unfold and keeping up with recent polling trends leading into the New Hampshire primary, I have some advice for Senator Clinton.
Given the impossible scenario of Brandon Brewster advising Senator Clinton , he would recommend three tactics to help advance her in the Democratic primary.
One: Barack Obama has did an excellent to near perfect job of getting the mainstream media to adopt his message. David Axelrod, Obama's media consultant, must have assembled one hell of a media spin department, and a quick of study of both Carville and Begala's tactics will tell you that framing the debate is everything. (Change vs. More of the Same?) Obama has successfully framed the debate in such a way that nearly every candidate from Republican to Democrat have adopted the 'change' philosophy in their message. Now, granted Edwards has been preaching the class-warfare, change the corporate greed in Washington theme for quite sometime, he in no way made the practice of using it popular during this campaign, Obama did this when he dramatically increased in the Iowa polls. Huckabee jumped on this 'change' bandwagon early and this led to both Obama and Huckabee gaining an 'originality' boost in support, esp. from those young liberals and hungry-youthful Republicans whom have been burnt by the current Republican establishment. This 'change' tactic forced many caucus goers against these well-financed, entrenched machines that both Romney and Hillary Clinton had. (Conservative Christians played a role in the Romney revolt as well) You won't see this often, but I have to give it to Dick Morris, he called it pretty early: Democrats should not run on static platforms, and they should never run on experience; Democrats and in particular the liberal wing of the party, love CHANGE. Hillary by simply running on experience alienated herself from the liberal wing of the Democrat Party whom traditionally wants to change the status quo, she also failed to calculate the fact that during times of very unpopular wars the independent voters tend to reach out and embrace fringe elements of either political party. What can she do to correct her message mistake and slow Obama down? She needs to be more specific on how her experience has been linked to change in Washington. It's not enough to state that experience is a vehicle for change, she needs to be the candidate that can honestly state a proven record of change, unlike her rival. I would drive it through the heads of voters that change has already occurred during Clinton leadership. So many years of experience is no good unless you can highlight what you've did during that time. Not to take anything away from President Bill Clinton, but I would advise Hillary to reach back to those eight prosperous years and take credit for those positive ( The economy, foreign policy accomplishments, welfare reform, smaller government, the containment of anti-Americanism, etc) things that came out of Washington during that time, and leave the negative (NAFTA, Free Trade with China, Waco, etc.) for Bill to clean up. President Bill Clinton is at a point where Hillary can use his record in both negative and positive ways without affecting public opinion in relation to their feelings toward him; to sum up that point, people have made up their minds about Bill. Hillary needs to merge both experience and change; my message new message for Hillary would be: Proven Experience. Proven Change.
Two: Now that Hillary has as a 'proven record of change ' she needs to attack Obama on his message of hope and change. Obama has consistently said that when he gets to Washington things are going to change for the better, and that his policies will right the wrongs of the Bush administration and correct the problems that had existed even before Mr. Bush came to Washington. This is where Hillary needs to attack; she needs to make pointed attacks in her stump speeches, and direct her communications department to drive through this message " Barack Obama has consistently referred to changing Washington, yet he has failed to provide the public with any comprehensive details of these proposed changes." Regardless of whether or not these details exist, she needs to bait Obama into a discussion of proposed policies, once this has been accomplished she needs to go in for the kill. I believe that Hillary has far superior policy advisors and she has spent more time networking with individuals whom could really pick apart any proposed policy that Obama would provide details on, this would allow for Hillary to run attack ads (Now that we're out of Iowa) on the policies that Obama would propose. This would give her the ability to claim the political high ground; she made no open personal attacks, she did not attack his previous voting record, and she is simply comparing and contrasting opposing policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe Obama nor Hillary have engaged in these types of advertisements at this point, and it would provide an opening for Hillary to seize the 'change' philosophy. Her theme: lack of experience equals inadequate policies.
Three: I certainly believe that there is a media bias at work; I've given credit to Obama's communications team, they're good, but not that good. From mainstream networks to individuals blogs, everyone seems to be on board with the Hillary bashing. The most liberal bloggers of our party seem to regard her as an intolerable evil, comparable to Roger Ailes and Lee 'Darth Vader' Atwater. The mainstream media seem to love the fact that the presumed invincibility of the Clinton machine is now meeting its demise by political new-comers whom have just stepped up to the plate. Whatever the case I've been trying to realistically analyze why these overwhelming and misguided views exist. For example, a common phrase that you might here is that "Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate." Honestly, that statement isn't entirely true; the Democratic Party is a very diverse party in which many constituents struggle for control, it just so happens that the constituency that Hillary Clinton represents is a minority in the Democratic Party, the corporate Democrats. Bill confounded and headed the organization known as the Democratic Leadership Council (they also drafted the 'Super Tuesday' to balance the liberal sway over the Democratic Presidential primary system during the 80's) which advocated the abandonment of populism, in favor of a more corporate, pro-business philosophy for the Democratic Party. Democrats whom adopt this banner go by the title 'New Democrat' (Governor Manchin is a New Democrat), and they are a minority in our party, don't believe me? The DLC has had a very difficult time winning and recruiting influence within the Democratic Party, for example, the DLC hand picked (with the Clinton machine) Wesley Clark (who I think would be an excellent running mate for Hillary if nominated) as their candidate in 2004 to defeat George W Bush, but there was one problem, he couldn't get through the Democratic primary. By all means Wesley Clark is an appealing Democrat, whom I think could have beaten Bush in 2004 despite what some say. Retired four-star military general, former Nixon Republican (a nice time to deploy "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me." Could still be used by Senator Webb of Virginia?), proven leadership abilities, a Clinton machine directed by the DLC, and well versed in policy issues by the Progressive Policy Institute (The sister organization to the DLC, founded by Clinton White House staffer John Podesta), yet he could not defeat Senator Kerry. Want another example? Here's one, Harold Ickes (now a political strategist for Hillary's campaign) whom served in the White House as a deputy chief of staff for President Bill Clinton was the DLC's hand picked candidate for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, however we all know he was defeated by newcomer Howard Dean, of whom was backed by liberal interests within the party who despise the DLC and hate triangulation.
So, is Hillary Clinton the establishment candidate? No. She may have been the mainstream candidate who was predicted to win big in 2008, but clearly she is not the 'Democratic Party's' hand picked candidate. So why is the media, who clearly knows the truth continuing to drive falsehoods? I do not know; perhaps the mainstream media is being sold this anti-Clintonism by liberal bloggers and well financed political action committees whom hate the New Democrats? Is it the underdog effect on a whole new level? (We all know why Fox News has Dick Morris and other pundits attacking Hillary day in and day out) For sometime now Ann Coulter and other Conservative spinsters have stated that the mainstream media has a liberal bias, perhaps this liberal bias that is supposed to inherently exist in the media is turning against Hillary for the injustices that her husband committed while in office?
I do not know, but what I do know is that Hillary needs to go on the offensive. She needs to move massive amounts of political capital through back-channel type connections to drive forward the fact that the media is sheltering Barack Obama. It would be politically unhealthy for her to appear as a victim, she needs to make it appear that the media is clearly neglecting their responsibility to ask the tough questions of Obama, and are deliberately sheltering him from critical points that question the durability of his leadership, and most clearly, his electability during a general election. She could win this fight, but she needs to do it strategically and quickly, behind the scenes and most likely over the internet where she can unleash this spawn without a connection to her campaign. Publicly she can point out that the media, will only begin to ask these much needed questions of electability after the nomination process is over, which is wrong. These questions need to be raised and asked now as a mechanism to determine whom the best candidate is going into the general election to face whomever the Republican nominee is. The only thing left to determine is whether or not there is enough time for implementation? Although the hour is late, I believe that she could implement my three point plan and hope for the best; a loss in both Iowa and New Hampshire is not the end, nor is a loss in South Carolina, but beyond that she needs to draw a very thick line in the sand.
Bill Clinton gave a great speech at the JJ Dinner in Charleston last night. I really wasn't in a position to take notes, but Lawrence Messina with the Associated Press was, and his article on Bill Clinton can be read here.
CHARLESTON — The United States could match the new jobs it added to mobilize for World War II if it takes seriously the threat posed by climate change, former President Bill Clinton told a West Virginia crowd Saturday.
“It has to be at the heart of our economic strategy,” Clinton said. “We could save the planet and revive the economy.”
Developing new energy sources, increasing the efficiency of existing ones and arresting greenhouse emissions could provide the influx of new jobs that the national economy requires every five to eight years, Clinton said.
Lauding former Vice President Al Gore for his recent Nobel Peace Prize win in this area, Clinton also said West Virginia coal could play a part through clean-emission technology.
“This creates jobs for people at every education level, every skill level,” Clinton said. Without such a source of new jobs, Clinton said, “the middle class is going to get the squeeze.”
I'm not so sure about coal playing a part in "clean-emission technology", but he was supporting West Virginia Democrats like his good friend Governor Joe Manchin who is pushing the Coal to Liquid program to the hilt. We all know how Al Gore feels about CTL, and it isn't something he believes in.
President Clinton also had some strong comments on the SCHIP legislation vetoed by pResident Bush....
He singled out their attacks on Graeme Frost, the 12-year-old Baltimore boy who suffered severe brain damage in a car accident three years ago. Frost and his family have become the human face of the vetoed bill to expand the state Children’s Health Insurance Program system.
Clinton defended CHIP, created in 1997 during his administration, and the bill’s push to enlarge its rolls.
“It was set up for people who weren’t poor,” he said, citing the Medicaid program for that segment of the population. “Everybody knows that the health care system doesn’t work for households of modest income.”
Clinton said voters also want to know why the number of uninsured has grown despite the spending of $700 billion a year on health care.
He also very correctly identified the modus operandi of Republicans...
“America turns to us when they need something done,” Clinton said. “When they want someone who will hyperventilate and demonize, we’re just not as good as doing that as Republicans are.”
We had been told earlier that the former President wasn't going to be available for photos and autographs... but he was. It is obvious he felt at home here in West Virginia a state that Governor Joe Manchin in his introductory remarks likened to President Clinton's home state of Arkansas. He seemed to enjoy the crowd every bit as much as they enjoyed him.
More pictures and comments can be seen below the fold.
(A thoughtful Diary... one that should provoke some interesting comments. - promoted by wvblueguy)
It was my good friend from another website and now a member of this website husker83 that convinced me to think much harder on this issue than I ever have before, and he was exactly 100 percent on the money right on target.
He said in response to my "comedian and charismatics" diary that working middle class Americans tend to listen to people who have similar educational backgrounds to them far more often than those who don't.
And the same is true for politeness and friendliness as well. If you're not as friendly or polite or as willing to listen to them like they think they you should be in any walk of life they will not listen or take heed to anything you say no matter how true those statements are or how logical they might sound.
And forget about being an "elitist" if you're a candidate from either the Democratic or Republican Party. The best way to lose an election is to act like that 100 percent certain no question about it.
And ever since Ronald Reagan in 1980 Republicans have held the advantage 2 different but yet crucial areas with the obvious exception of Bill Clinton in '92 and '96 and probably his wife Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Here are the 2 reasons listed below:
1. Educational attainment
I myself love fellow Democratic bloggers like Ezra Klein and Christi Hardin Smith of firedoglake.com who are both very intelligent and know 100 percent what they're talking about on every political issue facing this country today.
I also love Keith Olbermann of Countdown fame. He too is very intelligent and knows the heck what's he's talking about.
However, I would say that at least 50 percent of my fellow Americans especially my fellow evangelicals and Pentecostals if not 90 percent of them tune those highly intelligent well-educated people out the very 1st time they've read their blogs or watch their shows, and I'll tell you why I think that is.
Like it or not most of my fellow Americans especially those from the Deep South and here in Appalachia sadly tend to not take education very seriously. All they try to do is "slide by" with B's, C's and D's in school and pass "by the skin of their teeth" and "get that darn diploma so I can get the heck out of school and away from mom and dad" and that's it.
You would think my fellow evangelicals and Pentecostals would be the "mostly likely" to do do. Instead we are the "least likely" of all denominations to do so instead. Pentecostal preachers and church goers here in southern West Virginia McDowell County especially all the time seem to brag about their lack of education and even boast about it the majority of the time. Pentecostalism always has been considered a "poor and uneducated man's religion" and many Pentecostals rightfully or wrongfully feel that more financially stable more well-educated mainline Methodist and Baptist Christians are "elitist, stuck up, too smart for their own good, and bigger than their heads."
That's a major reason in the United States why Pentecostal churches' membership has absolutely exploded since the Reagan days while the mainline churches such as Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians have seen a sharp decline in membership. My fellow Pentecostals feel again rightfully or wrongfully they are 100 percent welcome in their church while not so much welcome in mainline churches such as Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians.
The exact same concept is true in politics as well. Our last two Democratic presidential candidates such Al Gore and John Kerry were far more intelligent than our current president Mr. Bush but that actually turned off more American voters especially those in red states especially right here in Appalachia in the Deep South as well. High school graduate voters rightfully or wrongfully feel that they are being ignored by the "more elitist" Democrats than they are from the Republicans even though it is a proven fact that far more Republicans are "elitists" than Democrats. But the perception of most high-school graduates and even drop-outs is completely the opposite especially in Republican red states like those in Appalachia and the Deep South. And the Republican Party to their credit has done an absolutely fantastic job in using that to their advantage in presidential elections....
And the use of big words by Ezra Klein, Christy Hardin Smith, and Keith Olbermann while 100 percent right on target tends to turn off the lower-middle-income lower class voters as well especially here in Appalachia and the Deep South.
I am one of the very few college graduates I know whom makes McDowell County his home. And people here always tells me I'm a genius and smart and "you know more about this than I ever could."
And guess where the biggest "teasing" of me about my education is at: you guessed it, my very own Pentecostal churches and the people attending them.
Advantage Republicans except for 1 or perhaps 2 candidates here in 2008:
Bill Clinton in '92 and '96 and so far thank God with his wife Hillary Clinton this year 2008. I'll explain why after concluding these 2 important topics.
2. Friendliness and politeness
Again advantage Republicans with the exception of Bill Clinton in '92 and '96 and probably Hillary as well here in 2008.
My fellow Appalachians and Southerners not only want a candidate who is 100 percent right on target policy-wise, but they also prefer if not outright demand to be "personal friends" with their elected officials both Democrats and Republicans. Explanation coming up...
Red Staters Southerners and us Appalachians from southern WV, eastern KY, and southwestern VA expect if not outright demand candidates to "enter their house" if you will and "talk to them 1-on-1" and to their families as well children and pets included. They want "down home" candidates who speak their language and listen to their concerns even when the candidates themselves....
Get this because this is very very important...
Disagree with them policy-wise and issue-wise as well. Red staters especially in the Appalachians and the Deep South expect and even outright demand most of the time that the people representing them in any political office to have "personal and social friendships" with them. In other words somebody just like them who is considerate and will listen to them...
even if they disagree with them 100 percent on the issues.
That's why Republicans Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes to a lesser extent were so successful politically. Most red staters my fellow Appalachians and Deep Southerners felt "connected" to them even when they disagreed with them strongly on most issues especially economic ones.
On the other hand Democratic presidential candidates Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry were fairly or unfairly perceived as being "too boring, too stuck up, and too big for their britches."
Yes we Democrats were 100 percent right most of the time on the issues and the Republicans were 100 percent wrong on them.
However most of the people I know here in McDowell County and the rest of southern West Virginia where I live could care less, even when you agree 100 percent with them on the issues. The same is true for eastern Kentucky and southwestern Virginia as well. People here want "friends" and not "politicians."
And this is 100 percent true but in real life as well. Some of my best friends disagree with me 100 percent on religion and sports and yes politics too - and some of my very worst detractors actually agree with me 100 percent on politics, religion, and sports. I love the Kentucky Wildcats with all my heart but some of my worst experiences online have been with my fellow UK fans. I also have had many problems getting along with people here in my home county even though we agree 100 percent on almost every issue politically and otherwise.
And politics is no exception.
Once again advantage Republicans. Republicans once again - besides guess who? you probably already know the answer to this question - have done a much better job of using "friendliness" and "politeness" to their advantage even though I know they are 100 percent wrong on political issues.
Red staters especially Deep Southerners and my fellow Appalachians from southern WV, eastern KY, and southwestern VA all demand "personal relationships and friendships" with everybody around here. Again politicians are no exception.
The only Democratic presidential candidate since Reagan to get it right on these 2 critically important topics is Bill Clinton, and thankfully his wife Hillary seems to be doing the exact same thing now as well. If you listen to both of them speak they never ever use long words that geniuses Klein, Olbermann, and Smith use and always talk in a language Red Staters especially those in the Deep South and here in Appalachia can easily understand. Even when most people disagree with them sharply at times myself included they have both been successful in forming "personal friendships and relationships" here. Bill did it and thank God Hillary seems to have gotten the message as well.
And have you ever noticed both Clintons never ever seem to use big words and talk "intelligent elitist talk" like Smith, Klein, and Olbermann? They talk in plain, simple language and terms that the "average Joe voter" can always understand. That's why Americans even many Red Staters love the Clintons even when they disagree with them strongly on everything else policy and issue wise.
Most people myself included didn't give Senator Hillary Clinton a snowball's chance in hell of ever being elected president because of the false perception of her being too impersonal, stuck up, and too elitist for Red Staters esp. in the Deep South and Appalachia. But thank God she is proving many of her former critics wrong by being downright warm, affectionate, and loving, and by forming "personal relationships and friendships" with voters completely disproving the false negative stereotypes of her being "too intelligent and too elitist for her own good."
That's also the reason she's creaming Edwards and Obama in the Democratic primaries as well and even beating southerner John Edwards at his own game most of the time.
And the number 1 one reason I am now convinced that Hillary Clinton is now the overwhelming favorite not only to win the Democratic primary but the 2008 general election as well. She has apparently and intelligently as expected taken her husband the best pure politician in our lifetime's wise and savvy advice and is intelligently using her observations of her husband in this very underrated issue today - the issue of being "personal and not political."
Most Americans love and prefer people they can be friends with and still disagree with 100 percent of the time over people they agree with 100 percent time on political issues but stiil treat them like dirt.
And I don't see that ever changing at least in my lifetime.
DEMO MEMO President Bill Clinton to Keynote Annual Democratic Dinner -Record-breaking crowd expected for Jefferson-Jackson Dinner- CHARLESTON, WV – West Virginia State Democratic Party Chairman Nick Casey today announced that President Bill Clinton will be this year’s keynote speaker for the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, which will be held on Saturday, Oct. 13 at the Charleston Civic Center. President Bill Clinton officially accepted Gov. Joe Manchin’s personal invitation earlier this week. “I am truly honored that President Clinton has accepted my invitation to be our guest speaker this year,” Gov. Joe Manchin said. “Anytime we can get a former president, who still enjoys such high popularity, in our state, it is a positive thing. I join my fellow Democrats in welcoming President Clinton and look forward to his visit.” The Jefferson-Jackson Dinner is an annual fundraising event that is sponsored by the Democratic Party every fall in Charleston. The Party is expecting to shatter any previous crowd records and pack more than 2,000 Democrats into the Civic Center this year. “The Party has tried for several years to get President Clinton to keynote our annual dinner,” Chairman Casey added. “We feel very fortunate that he has accepted the invitation this year, and we are confident that we will have a great crowd. Democrats won’t want to miss this event.” Tickets are $125 for floor seating and $75 for first-level seating and will go on sale Tuesday, Sept. 4, at 9:00 a.m. Individuals may purchase tickets by calling the Democratic Party headquarters at 304.342.8121.
I have always wondered why it seems to be the case without exception since the 1964 presidential election when the opposite was true. I wasn't even born until 1970 but have done some research on this. And what I've found is very interesting to say the least.
In 1964 the last total moderate to be Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater was the last brutally honest Republican presidential candidate there was. He told it like it is. And what did he get in return for his brutal honesty? He was trounced big time by Democrat Lyndon Johnson with only a few Deep Southern states supporting him mostly because Johnson was only the second real President besides JFK to support racial integration. Goldwater also won his home state of Arizona but just barely.
Since 1964 however the tables have turned big time. Starting with the 1968 presidential election. That election was the last time us Democrats had that in our favor. Every election since then it's been totally and completely different. Republicans have been given the benefit of the doubt since then without exception. Even in '76 when Jimmy Carter was elected.
This time Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey was the more honorable candidate. Richard Nixon on the other hand was very irritating even in his campaigns to say the least. Again Americans chose the worse of the two candidates.
The same was even more evident in 1972. The last really brutally honest presidential candidate - I'm 50/50 on Jimmy Carter - on either side of the aisle George McGovern was trounced in 49 of 50 states with the only exceptions Massachusetts and District of Columbia.
Even in 1976 presidential election where Democrat Jimmy Carter was elected Gerald Ford who was very unpopular after pardoning Richard Nixon still managed 240 electoral votes and was arguably a few votes away from carrying Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi or else he would have been re-elected. The South for the very last time voted solidly Democratic except for Virginia. Even fellow Southerner Bill Clinton only managed a split there.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan trounced Carter pretty easily. Actually besides record inflation and Iran Hostage Crisis Jimmy Carter's reign wasn't half bad. Still Carter managed to carry only a very few solidly Democratic states. Even the Deep South besides his home state of Georgia turned their backs on him.
Things were just completely awful economically in 1984. Yet Reagan won 49 out of 50 states and almost carried Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota.
Again in 1988 George Bush Senior won election pretty easily over the more honorable Michael Dukakis. The Solid South was a major player for Republicans for the very first time. Yes they did vote for Reagan but this was really first time Southerners were very influential in the Republican Party.
In 1992 it was the "economy stupid" and our last great President Bill Clinton was elected mostly because the economy was in very sad shape. So much so that even Bush Sr.'s first Iraq War "success" - Bush Sr. didn't finish the deal - didn't even help him. Clinton was re-elected in 1996 even though at times he was dishonest about his personal life. Again it was the "economy stupid" that won him re-election. Even then a solid minority of people voted Republican.
Do you ever wonder how Ross Perot would have done if he had stayed in the race the whole time instead of dropping out and then re-entering again? To me that was the best and only shot at the United States ever having a viable third party.
Actually in my opinion fairly or not Bill Clinton hurt this country big time when he let the Republicans use the "Contract for America" against him and his fellow Democrats in Congress to oust us in '94. It was just last year's 2006 election that we Dems took over Congress again almost exclusively due to opposition to the Iraqi occupation.
Then for the very first time since Andrew Johnson President Clinton was impeached just because he lied under oath concerning his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. It seemed at the time that maybe Republicans were not all that they were cracked up to be. Only 2 minor offenses were listed and Clinton was acquitted simply because for the first time in our collective lives the Democrats in the Senate were unanimous in their oppostion. You think that in the next presidential election Americans would have learned their lesson.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In 2000 George W. Bush was elected and chosen President by the Supreme Court even though he probably lost Florida legitimately. And sadly home state of West Virginia voted for a non-incumbent Republican presidential candidate for the 1st time since Herbert Hoover in 1928 mostly with the support of my fellow evangelicals. And boy we Americans have paid dearly for that mistake. Florida would have meant absolutely nothing if West Virginia had stuck to its Democratic roots.
In 2004 for the very first time the "values" issue took precedent as the number one issue with 9/11 a close second. Things were so bad in 2004 the rest of the world wondered "How could Americans be so stupid?" as Bush won re-election even by a greater margin in 2004 than in 2000. I still think Ohio voted for John Kerry but Bush again had both the Ohio and US Supreme Courts on his side as well as Ohio's very partisan secretary of state so there was really nothing Kerry and us Dems could legally do about it.
See the pattern developing here? Ever since 1968 Republicans have gotten the benefit of the doubt for the most part by Americans even by us Democrats and independents 100 percent of the time without exception and have been allowed to do things that if our fellow Democrats did them would create a very loud outcry by the media and my fellow Americans. Brutal honesty was the reason Democrats Humphrey, McGovern, and perhaps Carter lost big time. Meanwhile Republican liars have gotten off scot free for the most part. And we Americans sadly are 100 percent responsible. And sadly my fellow evangelicals are again the main reason why.
Do you think Democrats would have impeached Bush if he lied about a sexual affair? No way! In fact every Democrat in Congress would overlook it and think absolutely nothing of it. But Republicans did actually impeach Clinton and were actually rewarded for doing so in 2000 and 2004 by mostly my fellow evangelicals.
And finally my last question. What if Pres. Clinton had sent our troops to Iraq to conduct a pre-meditated strike just like Bush did? He would have been impeached and removed from office yesterday. And a majority if not at least two-thirds of Democrats in both houses of Congress would have voted for it. And it would have taken at the very most 1000 dead US soldiers for that to happen. Instead Bush and Cheney are likely to escape any punishment at all. A huge minority and perhaps even a majority of Americans currently oppose impeachment. But I am 100 percent certain that if Clinton had done the exact same thing a solid majority of Americans even many of us Dems would have impeached him, removed him out of office, and might have even put him in prison. Sadly I am not joking.....
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind a Double Standard as to what Republicans can do and what us Democrats can do. The bar for some reason is set much higher for Democrats than Republicans. Again I think it's mostly because of my fellow evangelicals. Bush is a "born-again Christian" so he must be doing the "will of God." Clinton on the other hand is a "servant of Satan" and a "baby-killer" so he "deserves prison" for even lying about a sexual affair. Even though Americans including my fellow evangelicals I might add lie about their sex lives all the time.
Polls currently show the 2008 presidential race a virtual deadlock. When it really shouldn't be. We Democrats should be ahead in them big time. We have almost 3500 dead US soldiers, unlimited corporate welfare, Medicare Part Death, Halliburton and other defense contractors profitting from our soldiers' injuries and deaths, more uninsured Americans in our health care system than at any time in US history, health care and public college and university costs soaring and tripling the rate of inflation, gas prices at record highs, and a bigger gap between the top 1 percent of wage-earners and the bottom 50 percent than at any time in US history.
Yet many if not most presidential polls have the 2008 race as a dead heat if not a slight Republican lead. Sad but true....
And one last point I have to make. When Bush was chosen president in 2000 most Democrats me included said "we want Bush to succeed."
Never even once during Bill Clinton's presidency did I hear even one Republican say the same thing. Not even once.
And another disturbing trend I noticed is that Americans supported the lying candidates especially the Republican ones over the brutally honest ones every single time with one exception: President Bill Clinton. And even he was sometimes dishonest in his own right.
And we Americans only have only ourselves to blame. Sorry for this brutally long diary but I felt it necessary to make all my points.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
