This is a quote from
this hidden comment.
If that's really true, it's civil war. I'm tired of that. How about this. I'm from California. Run someone from California or I won't vote for them.
I'm a Northerner, run a Southerner and I won't vote for him...
How does that sound? Does that sound like you should just beat a path to my door and ask, "oh, what can we do to please you Pyrrho?"
Of course there has to be a Southern strategy, and of course there has to be a California strategy. But if that strategy really is supposed to mean, "offer only native sons", then no, it's civil war time because it's impossible to have a federation where all the rulers come from one region, even if it does have the best school systems in the nation (see the sarcasm?).
You are telling me that I HAVE to have a "leader" from the South to run the North and South? That is unacceptable. That's an aristocracy, a really wierd one.
Luckily I'm just blowing off steam. I don't think the title of this entry is true any more, and it's a matter of breaking open the lock box of Southern Progressivism.
PS: to you progressive Southerners. Please don't take offense, I think I'm on your side. For one, to be a progressive in the South shows fortitude, and I think probably a stronger breed of progressive is forming in the South. (I call it the Janis Joplin Grew Up In Texas Effect). But moreover, my lament here is more than one part confidence in you and your role in your own culture. I actually think you exist!