Skip to main content

Vivian Malone entering Foster Auditorium to register for classes at the University of Alabama. Vivian Malone, one of the first African Americans to attend the university, walks through a crowd that includes photographers, National Guard members, and Dep
Those racist southern Democrats trying to keep Vivian Malone out of the University of Alabama in 1963 are now called "Republicans."
Bruce Bartlett was an adviser to Ronald Reagan and a deputy assistant secretary for economic policy in George W. Bush's Treasury Department (which I guess is more impressive than it sounds?). But he's made his career as your typical conservative columnist pundit, which is why his latest missive in The American Conservative has gotten so much attention. And how can it not, with passages like this?
As I wrote the book, however, my utter disdain for Bush grew, as I recalled forgotten screw-ups and researched topics that hadn’t crossed my radar screen. I grew to totally despise the man for his stupidity, cockiness, arrogance, ignorance, and general cluelessness.
Who could disagree with that? I mean, other than conservative dead-enders, who are the target of Bartlett's words? And yes, conservative-on-conservative violence is always fun and welcome. But we can never forget that Bartlett is a contemptible asshole.

It's not the fact that his missive is one long whine about conservative media ignoring his books (and an inaccurate whine, at that). It's stuff like this:

The best way to get Republicans to read a book about reaching out for the black vote, I thought, was to detail the Democratic Party’s long history of maltreatment of blacks. After all, the party was based in the South for 100 years after the war, and all of the ugly racism we associate with that region was enacted and enforced by Democratic politicians. I was surprised that such a book didn’t already exist.
Was this dick really going to pretend that he didn't know what became of the Dixiecrats?
I thought knowing the Democratic Party’s pre-1964 history of racism, which is indisputable, would give Republicans a story to tell when they went before black groups to solicit votes. I thought it would also make Republicans more sympathetic to the problems of the black community, many of which are historical in their origins. Analyses by economists and sociologists show that historical racism still holds back African-Americans even though it has diminished radically since the 1960s.

So I wrote Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Unfortunately, it was published the day Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses.

Holy shit. He really did pretend he didn't know what became of those Southern racist Democrats! They went the way of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Richard Shelby, Rick Perry, Roy Moore and so many others and became Republican.  

That's why white voters opted for Romney 84-15 in Alabama, and 89-10 in Mississippi this year—because they've inherited the Dixiecrat legacy. It cost Democrats dearly as a national party for two generations, and will cost Democrats dearly in the South for a distressingly long time, but we finally get to reap the rewards of discarding the bigots and racists from our own ranks.

Originally posted to kos on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:27 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Rs can have the bigoted he-man woman haters (25+ / 0-)

    (R's) take those tired memes and shove 'em, Denise Velez Oliver, 11/7/2012.

    by a2nite on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:32:24 PM PST

  •  Repubicans are now growing their new generation (25+ / 0-)

    of racist dog whistlers.  They can't seem to help themselves.

  •  My thoughts exactly (23+ / 0-)

    Did he really not know that all of Virginia's Massive Resistance Democrats are now Republicans?

    He's still mired in the same old epistemic closure....

    "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

    by SNFinVA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:37:52 PM PST

    •  Although ... (16+ / 0-)

      We should encourage people like Mr Bartlett to continue moderating. Yes his arguments about the legacy of Southern Dixiecrats are absurd, but isn't this the same Bruce Bartlett that wrote about his Keynesian conversion in The American Conservative or some such rag?  We need guys like him to continue walking towards reality.

      •  I can't totally hate TAC (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        subtropolis, Smoh, fou, skohayes, kyril, boofdah

        They question imperialism and I share their basically pessimistic view of human nature, although theirs is Burkean while mine points me to a strongly interventionist state.  Not totally hating them, I recognize, is a severe moral failing on my part since their views on race, gender, and sexuality are totally hateful.  I should hate them more.

        You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

        by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:02:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, if they have smart things to say (5+ / 0-)

          then I don't see that there's a need to dismiss them wholesale. My problem isn't with worthy conservative ideas or liberal ideas.  My problem is with dogmatic ideology. I'm allergic to that no matter which side it falls on.

          •  It's just a matter of whether someone can be... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fou, Plantsmantx

            ...so bad that making common cause with them on any issue is ethically unsound.  It's an interesting issue in part because it's a litmus test of how seriously we take badness that's not specifically directed to us: I'm white, so TAC's racism doesn't call my worth into question, but at some point I ought not to take such a narrow view.

            You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

            by Rich in PA on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:00:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a really compelling question (0+ / 0-)

              and I think it's one we all grapple with. Three of my "identities" fall into protected classes, but not all do. I'm highly educated and fall somewhere near the upper-end of the middle class.

              I don't believe the TAC's of the world are the problem. I think that wherever we can find common cause with people of good will we should. The more we engage in dialog, the more we are able to challenge and influence their ideas and to test our own assumptions.

      •  yes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou, kyril
        I hit upon the idea of ignoring the academic journals and looking instead at what economists like John Maynard Keynes, Irving Fisher, and others said in newspaper interviews and articles for popular publications. Recently computerized databases made such investigation far easier than it previously had been.

        After careful research along these lines, I came to the annoying conclusion that Keynes had been 100 percent right in the 1930s. Previously, I had thought the opposite. But facts were facts and there was no denying my conclusion. It didn’t affect the argument in my book, which was only about the rise and fall of ideas. The fact that Keynesian ideas were correct as well as popular simply made my thesis stronger.

        I finished the book just as the economy was collapsing in the fall of 2008. This created another intellectual crisis for me. Having just finished a careful study of the 1930s, it was immediately obvious to me that the economy was suffering from the very same problem, a lack of aggregate demand. We needed Keynesian policies again, which completely ruined my nice rise-and-fall thesis. Keynesian ideas had arisen from the intellectual grave.

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:56:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  agreed but i hope he speaks up more (10+ / 0-)

    it seems they just double-down on stupid whenever somebody tells them the truth.

    keep it up i say.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:39:18 PM PST

  •  Yes, I believe Fig Newton must've read his book (14+ / 0-)

    when he once pointed out that it was Democrats who are the racists and then went on to advise black folks to look for paychecks instead of welfare checks or send our kids to work as janitors so they can know the benefit of work since no one else in our households have jobs. Santorum shortly thereafter reached out to blah people to tell us to get the hell off of welfare. He may have read the book too.

     Glad I didn't give Bartlett page views reading his drivel...and I won't be buying his book.

    •  Two of the most offensive episodes in the (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, milkbone, wwjjd, latts, Sharon Wraight, MsLiz

      whole Republican primary circus.

      But there are rank and file wingers who apparently have read Bartlett's book too, or gotten those talking points from somewhere.  I used to spar with a right-wing woman on the politics board of a mom's site.  She insisted that Dems were total hypocrites in appealing for black support, as they were the real racists, and the ones who had supported segregation.  WHen I talked about Strom Thermon, Jesse Helms, and the other Dixiecrats picking up and moving to the Republican party, and being welcomed with open arms, I think she was genuinely floored.  She fell silent for a couple of days, a most unusual event.  I don't think she knew the history of her own party.

      But then again, she also argued that Democrats had deliberately "made black people dependent," so they were "hooked" on government checks and would keep voting for Dems to get them.  So even though she saw herself as opposing  (Democratic) racism  -- she also viewed African Americans as passively manipulated people clinging to welfare. She was echoing Newt and Santorum pretty exactly.  Her attitudes were quite racist, no matter what she thought she was up to.

      It was a good chance, though, to lay out Republican history for the other women following the board.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:32:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, they seem to (3+ / 0-)

        genuinely believe this.  Apparently the white southern Democrats of old all migrated north or died off or have been successfully beaten down by the amazingly-enlightened, color-blind Republicans of the new south.  The perniciousness of liberal racism is in the weakened moral fiber, lack of religiosity, love of class warfare, and general immorality that has ruined all the good, respectable, nicely-dressed Republican blacks like Dr. King.

        [note: go back & read the post-surrender chapters of Gone With the Wind to see a version of this narrative, one in which all but a few of the good, trustworthy slaves are corrupted and become dangerous beasts.]

        If the blacks and all the other dangerously amoral liberals, would just Straighten Up and Act Right, like good white southern folk, why, there wouldn't be any cultural conflicts at all.  And anyone who suggests otherwise is destroying America, so there!

        .......

        Seriously, one of my cousins tried the Dixiecrat = Democrats thing on FB with me a coupla weeks before the election.  I was nicer than I should have been, but he did not pursue the matter.

        "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

        by latts on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:17:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I also like how he was in favor of (12+ / 0-)

    Medicare Part D as long as he thought it was a cynical political ploy to keep the votes of senior citizens. As soon as he figured out that Bush actually meant what he said, Bartlett was horrified. Thanks, conservatism, but you can keep this one; we don't want him either.

    Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

    by eataTREE on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:55:58 PM PST

    •  But that's just who conservatives are. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eataTREE, jds1978, vcmvo2, MrJersey, kyril

      They manipulate their voters like puppets.
      Another thing that drove turnout in 2004 was several states trying to pass amendments to ban gay marriage, remember that?
      And how about the "Terror Alert Level"? Tom Ridge admitted that the Bush administration used that for political purposes, too.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:00:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Let's be real here... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      Washington isn't The West Wing filled with Toby Ziglers and President Bartletts. Politics at that level are cynical from David Axlerod to Bruce Bartlett. The goals are vastly different but the means are very similar. You could call out Obama for his gay marriage moves in the same vein. "Obama cynically wouldn't advocate for gay marriage in 2008..." You think he woke up a few days after Biden floated the trial balloon and had an epiphany?

      The Great Depression: Now In Color!

      by TheChop on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:20:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like all the Germans in 1946 *hated* the Nazis, (8+ / 0-)

    Bartlett just hates George W. Bush. Now that it's blindingly obvious to all sentient beings that he was a catastrophic failure in office.

    Funny thing, though. I don't recall Bartlett raging against Bush while he was still in office. I don't recall him backing up Secretary Snow when the latter was pilloried for daring to criticize the Bush White House after being pushed out. I don't recall Bartlett protesting the illegal invasion of Iraq, or torture.

    No props for recognizing that water is wet long after the rest of the world has moved on.

    •  You didn't read his article, did you? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, skohayes, Sharon Wraight

      If you're going to force us to invoke Godwin you could at least make it worthwhile. Go read the article.

      Here, i'll make it really simple for you:

      But as the Bush 43 administration progressed, I developed an increasingly uneasy feeling about its direction. Its tax policy was incoherent, and it had an extremely lackadaisical attitude toward spending. In November 2003, I had an intellectual crisis.

      All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

      by subtropolis on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:21:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yet its taken TWELVE YEARS (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        US Blues, MrJersey, niemann, Ralphdog

        for him to make some noise about it?

        Sorry but I call major bullshit.  

        I know he claims that he's been effectively blacklisted from not only Fox but all of NewsCorp empire but there are other  stations than Fox and other newspapers than the NY Post or the Wall Street Journal.   The bottom line is the guy is a lying piece of shit.  if he was serious about his Bush hatred he would have come out a long time ago and done it in a more forceful way.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:30:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, he did (7+ / 0-)

          He wrote a book published in February 2006 titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." I'd say that's pretty forceful and it happened over six years ago. Of course, I don't think Reagan had any real legacy to betray other than as the father of the war on the middle class, but that's another story. Bartlett may well be an ass as Kos says, but his article should be required reading for anybody trapped inside the right-wing cult.

          •  Betrayed the Reagan Legacy By Making it Apparent (5+ / 0-)

            to everyone what that legacy really is.

            We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

            by Gooserock on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:50:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And then he whined (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jds1978

            when it didn't sell.  Or when the typical right wing bubble completely ignored it.

            He seemed to forget that there was other media OUTSIDE the right wing bubble.  

            Hell I believe there was a small website with alot of orange on it back then that was growing in influence.  I know I was reading that web site back then and there was NOT A FUCKING PEEP about his book back then.    

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:00:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The point is, it didn't take him twelve years (4+ / 0-)

              to make some noise about it. He was effectively blacklisted early in Bush's second term. It's fine to criticize him, but at least make that criticism valid. Whether his book sold well or received broad exposure is beside the point, unless you're suggesting that he purposely tried to limit its audience.

          •  Still ... (0+ / 0-)
            As I wrote the book, however, my utter disdain for Bush grew, as I recalled forgotten screw-ups and researched topics that hadn’t crossed my radar screen. I grew to totally despise the man for his stupidity, cockiness, arrogance, ignorance, and general cluelessness.
            Us dirty, unpatriotic, treasonous libruls were pointing out all these qualities of Bush's long before Bartlett did.  

            Many familiar with Bush were saying it before he even became president.  (Molly Ivins, anyone?)

            We despised and disdained Bush long before Bartlett did.

            Will Bartlett now acknowledge that we were actually ... you know ... right?  

            Will he now give us credit for seeing the truth long before he did?  For having better and more accurate judgment than Republicans?

            Somehow I doubt it.

      •  Read the article, thanks. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AussieforObama2ndterm

        Mr. Bartlett still backed most of the Bush policies, having qualms only about spending, like a classic teabagger.

        I don't see where he had any problems at all with extraordinary rendition, torture, or the illegal invasion of Iraq. You know, real crimes.

        •  you're looking in all the wrong places (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharon Wraight

          If you thought this was about Bruce Bartlett having a come to Jesus moment over progressivism you're mistaken.

          Meanwhile, there's a GOP civil war going on …

          All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

          by subtropolis on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:47:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Its telling that his plan to win black voters (22+ / 0-)

    involves building resentment between the black and latino communities.  No call for positive outreach, instead Bartlett wants a different version of the southern strategy used on black people - the South of the Border Strategy.  Honestly that "plan" reveals all you need to know how he sees poor people and people of color.  

    He is right though; anti-immigrant feeling amongst the Republican base does make it nearly impossible for Republicans to build bridges with latinos.  Exhibit A - Arizona, where I've seen the hispanic population become increasingly blue as Republicans foam at the mouth because Maricopa county is becoming increasingly brown.  

  •  One more sinner clamoring for salvation (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glorificus, raptavio, a2nite, skohayes

    The somewhat-less-stupid-and-crazy members of the GOP know where their party is headed, whether it's the next cycle or a couple more cycles, they are already on a dive that they probably can't pull out of.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:08:22 PM PST

  •  It seems like... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes

    He has come to his economic catharsis recently.  If he is truly intelligent, maybe he will look at all of his beliefs and challenge those.   I'm trying to remember the article, but I think he wrote the 'race' book while he was going through is metempsychosis.  Sort of a 'hey, but I'm still one of you guys and look, this is how we get back at the Dems!'  If he starts reading Krugman with any respect, maybe he will reach the same conclusions on race, global warming, etc.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton/Julian Castro - 2016

    by RichM on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:09:48 PM PST

    •  Bartlett likes Krugman (4+ / 0-)
      On the plus side, I think I had a very clear understanding of the economic crisis from day one. I even wrote another op-ed for the New York Times in December 2008 advocating a Keynesian cure that holds up very well in light of history. Annoyingly, however, I found myself joined at the hip to Paul Krugman, whose analysis was identical to my own. I had previously viewed Krugman as an intellectual enemy and attacked him rather colorfully in an old column that he still remembers.

      For the record, no one has been more correct in his analysis and prescriptions for the economy’s problems than Paul Krugman. The blind hatred for him on the right simply pushed me further away from my old allies and comrades.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:03:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right... (4+ / 0-)

        As much as I love Kos telling it like it is and as much I like piling on to the idiocy of the right wing and for as many times as I've called people like Andrew Sullivan an idiot - I'm somehow willing to hold back a bit here on calling Bartlett a 'dick'.  I guess for some reason I want to see where he lands before I pass judgement (he seems to be in the middle of a metamorphes - not at the end).  I guess a part of me really wants to believe people can change.

        Hillary Rodham Clinton/Julian Castro - 2016

        by RichM on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:00:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, RichM, Sharon Wraight

          I see no real value in smacking people who are obviously learning and heading in a more positive direction whether you like their pace or not.   I enjoyed reading his article.  It's the kind of thing conservatives need to hear.  They certainly won't listen to us.  Maybe he can plant a few seeds of doubt for them.

  •  Long Memories (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WestWind, RUKind, Fiona West

    He is relying on the inherent laziness of the media not to go even an inch beneath the surface when discussing this.  The problem though is that the people who have been living with the dog whistles have long memories of just exactly who it is who was doing the whistling.

  •  Jonah Goldberg's tried this routine too (7+ / 0-)

    Now that they've discovered that being overtly racist doesn't work as well as it did in the past, conservatives have taken to claiming that racism only mattered pre-1964.  They don't seem to grasp that an awful lot of voters weren't even born in 1964, and all of us can see just fine what's happened since then.

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:16:07 PM PST

  •  I was thrilled to read his article (6+ / 0-)

    But, yeah—his race "strategy" is a non-starter, to say the least. He may have stepped out of one bubble but it's obvious that he's still got a way to go.

    Nonetheless, i was thrilled to read the article. Bring on the GOP civil war!

    All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

    by subtropolis on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:16:59 PM PST

  •  I read his "poor me" piece. (10+ / 0-)
    "My first book failed because of X."

    "My second book failed because of Y."

    "My third book failed because of Z."

    "Each book was a well-crafted, intellectually challenging and stimulating masterpiece that would have made the top of The New York Times Bestseller List if only X, Y and Z hadn't happened right when my books came out."

  •  Memo to the GOP: (16+ / 0-)

    We know about the Democratic Party's racist past.

    We own it. We acknowledge it.

    We also acknowledge that in 1964, we chose to break from that history and embrace the civil rights movement.

    And we also acknowledge that in 1968, the GOP took political advantage of that choice, and implemented the "Southern Strategy", which succeeded in drawing disaffected racist Democrats away from the Democratic Party and into the welcoming arms of the GOP.

    We also acknowledge that since then, the GOP, with its strategists like Lee Atwater, have continued to court the white racist vote by appealing to fear and prejudice of black youth ("crime in the streets"), black mothers ("welfare queens"), Hispanics, ("illegal immigrants"), and Muslims ("terrorists").

    We acknowledge and own our past. Now it's time for you to acknowledge and own your past, and your present.

    Then we can move forward together.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:29:32 PM PST

  •  Thanks for supplying another side of the story (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Sharon Wraight

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:30:23 PM PST

  •  If you want the Republican Party to split (5+ / 0-)

    Or at least come to its senses, here's where it starts.  I don't like conservatives, but I would much rather deal wi relatively sane ones.  Would be a nice change.

    "Let's see what fresh fuckwittery these dolts can contrive to torment themselves with this time." -- Iain Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata

    by Rikon Snow on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:36:41 PM PST

  •  Given how big a Reagan and Bush fan he was (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, kyril

    could an alternate explanation be that he's really this clueless and stupid?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:37:22 PM PST

    •  He wasn't a Bush fan, though (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Sharon Wraight
      I naïvely thought that a conservative critique of Bush when he was unable to run for reelection would be welcomed on the right since it would do no electoral harm. I also thought that once past the election, conservatives would turn on Bush to ensure that the 2008 Republican nomination would go to someone who would not make his mistakes.

      As I wrote the book, however, my utter disdain for Bush grew, as I recalled forgotten screw-ups and researched topics that hadn’t crossed my radar screen. I grew to totally despise the man for his stupidity, cockiness, arrogance, ignorance, and general cluelessness. I also lost any respect for conservatives who continued to glorify Bush as the second coming of Ronald Reagan and as a man they would gladly follow to the gates of hell. This was either gross, willful ignorance or total insanity, I thought.

      My book, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, was published in February 2006. I had been summarily fired by the think tank I worked for back in October 2005. Although the book was then only in manuscript, my boss falsely claimed that it was already costing the organization contributions. He never detailed, nor has anyone, any factual or analytical error in the book.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:06:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  He at least used the adjective "Democratic"... (9+ / 0-)

    so some points for that, at least....

    No matter how cynical you become, it's impossible to keep up; no matter how cynical you are, you have no idea...

    by ChristopherMays on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:39:08 PM PST

    •  damn..... you beat me too it.... (0+ / 0-)

      That was what i took out of the reading....well at least Bartlett called us the Democratic Party and not the Democrat Party....  which should be enough for him to be hated by republicans for years to come....  he is still a dick....

  •  delusional (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Sharon Wraight

    Republicans are delusional. They can't or won't see their own racist and sexist policies. They think they lost because Obama gave freebies to Blacks and women. Bartlett admitted that he was delusional through most of Bush's term. Only now have his eyes been opened to the atrocity that was the Bush years in America.

    Everyday, I am becoming more certain that they are doomed as a party.

    People will always remember how you made them feel.

    by imeanit on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:44:59 PM PST

  •  Holy Cow - I never knew James Byrnes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Sharon Wraight

    became a Republican late in life.  James "Jimmy" Byrnes was a staunch opponent of the Ku Klux Klan, and, as a United States Senator, supported the entire New Deal, even FDR's court packing plan.  He was a close advisor to FDR, and FDR put him on the Supreme Court.  He was considered the favorite to be FDR's running mate in 1944, which would have made him President instead of Truman, and promised to support and strengthen FDR's Fair Practice Employment Commission - requiring all government contractors during the war not to discriminate based on race, religion or national origin - Byrnes promised to keep the FPEC going in peacetime.  Instead of VP, he became Truman's Secretary of State.

    He was as staunch a liberal as South Carolina has ever produced, an important figure in American history and in the development of the Democratic Party, and I am shocked that he switched parties during the 1960's.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:48:20 PM PST

    •  I never knew much about Byrnes... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      until watching Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States on showtime....  Lets just say Oliver tends to not portray him in the best light...same for Truman for that matter....  so far I think the message I am suppose to get is that Henry Wallace got fucked over.....  

  •  When President Johnson lost the South, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Sharon Wraight

    When the Southern Democrats became Republicans, how man Republican's became Democrats?

    I'll go anywhere as long as it's forward. ~David Livingstone

    by Paddy999 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:55:40 PM PST

    •  In the South not very many (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      But nationwide it set the foundation for a shift that wasn't felt until about 24 years later.  Much of the country (like the west coast) that was either Republican or open to Republican candidates, turned blue after seeing that Southern conservatism had taken over the party.  It's hard to believe that California used to be a Republican state, but it was.  When Washington and Oregon went for Dukakis in 1988, it was one of the first major signs of a larger change taking place than most people realized.

  •  More about Bruce Bartlett (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    I don't have the words to describe what a narrow-minded, insulated  throwback Bruce Bartlett is.

    What a pity for America and the world that there are so many wealthy Conservative outlets paying people like him to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt ....along with fantasy and disinformation.

    More about Bruce Bartlett:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    SNIPPET:

    He compared the second Bush to Richard M. Nixon as "two superficially conservative presidents who enacted liberal programs to buy votes for reelection."[
  •  Thanks, Markos. I too almost blew my top off... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978, kyril

    ...when I got to that part in Bartlett's whine.

    Not our friend, not our partner. Not in a million years. Unless he first asks forgiveness for all his bigoted hackery.

    Meanwhile, I don't mind him jumping into the circular firing squad. Clearly he has no chance of remaining the last one standing.

    Reminds me of Gollum in his less-respectable moments.

  •  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Barlett (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, kyril, Plantsmantx

    doesn't know many black people.

    It's such a ignorant idea to think if you say "hey blacks, did you know prior to the 60's the democratic party was full of racists" and "hey, Abraham Lincoln was a republican" that will be enough to for people ignore the more recent history which is still happening to this day.

    Now what might actually work to begin to gain some black support would be a book aimed at conservatives reminding them their party once valued equality and that the "conservative" position is to fight for equality and not tolerate discrimination. If something like that was adopted by the republican party in deed and not just with lip service, republicans might have a shot at getting a larger portion of the minority voters

  •  It's Been a Long Time Coming (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978, kyril, Dbug

    FDR planned to purge the party of its Dixiecrats after the 1936 election.  But he first focused on trying to pack the Supreme Court.  His loss on that weakened him so that he never had the political strength to enact the purge.  

    And the Dixiecrats united with the Republicans to make certain that FDR never passed another significant piece of New Deal legislation.

    Here's to LBJ who used his political capital to begin the purge by committing Democrats to civil rights and voting rights, no matter which white bigots left the party to capitalize on racism.  

    LBJ thought Democrats had lost the south for a generation.  Turns out it was a lot longer than a generation.

    What LBJ didn't foresee was the hit Republicans would take in the north and in the Pacific west as a result of adopting the Southern Strategy.

    So nice to see those chickens coming home to roost.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:02:21 PM PST

    •  agree. DEMS never need the confederacy again..... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jds1978, swampyankee, kyril
    •  Democrats lost the South after LBJ, but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AussieforObama2ndterm

      It was a long process, starting in the 1920s and ending in the 1970s. As late as the 1950s, Southern states with laws that suppressed African-American votings were still voting as a bloc for Democrats. Take a look at the states that Adlai Stevenson won in these Wikipedia articles (scroll down a little to just below the photos of Eisenhower and Stevenson):

      United States presidential election, 1952 – Eisenhower was an enormously popular general who commanded the troops in WWII and he won by a landslide. Stevenson won only 9 states in the “solid south” (and bordering states): AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, KY, and WV. In 2012, Romney won all of those states.

      United States presidential election, 1956 – In ’56, Stevenson won only 7 states:  MO, AR, MS, AL, GA, SC, and NC. Again, every one of those states went to Romney in 2012.

      --

      Yes, Lincoln freed the slaves and the white Southern Democrats were often racist, reactionary, and conservative (and in the 1910s, 20s, and 30s, the progressives and liberals were mostly Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt or “Fighting Bob” La Follette), but…

      That gradually changed. All the liberals and progressives (and moderates) either left the Republican party or were kicked out. The racists (like Strom Thurmond) switched from Dem to Rep.

      “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

      by Dbug on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 08:04:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm amazed at how clueless republicans are (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    They reduce voting decisions down to simple transactions.  
    "If we tell blacks, democrats used to be racist, they'll vote for us", "if we pass immigration reform, latinos will vote for us"  and while it's true different groups place greater emphasis on various policy initiatives, republicans always seem to leave the simple matter of respect out the equation.

    The fact that Republicans are doing disastrously among Asians should give them a clue. They're a demographic that disproportionally have higher incomes and are small business owners and yet republican general race-baiting and nativism (and religious fundamentalism) have driven them into the democratic party.

    •  Bartlett is hardly clueless. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Sharon Wraight

      He is suggesting a strategy. It isn't meant to be comprehensive.
      Hate to remind you, but conservatives/republicans have dominated politics since Reagan. They still do. Obama is far more conservative economically than a GOP President in the 1950s was.

      •  It's a clueless strategy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CalexanderJ

        If he thinks he can win African American votes by pointing out that the Democratic Party used to be the racist party, he's clueless. He's not uncovering some hidden secret.

        The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

        by A Citizen on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:46:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He is suggesting approaching the African-American (0+ / 0-)

          vote, would help the GOP get the African-American vote.
          It's not that difficult nor radical of a concept.

          •  It's the method that is clueless (2+ / 0-)

            If the GOP wants to gain the African-American vote, they have to understand WHY they aren't getting it. The African-American vote used to be solidly Republican. African-Americans started voting Democratic as the racists abandoned the Democratic Party.

            Attempting to win over the African-American vote by running against the Democratic Party of many decades ago is a losing strategy.

            The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

            by A Citizen on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 06:40:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He isn't running against the Democratic Party (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nearzoltan, Sharon Wraight

              of many decades ago.
              He is essentially saying the exact same thing you did, "African-Americans used to be solidly Republican"
              I don't understand this necessity to try and disparage an article which not only agrees with what we believe (GOP has lost touch with reality & the GOP should be more welcoming of minorities), but does it in an articulate & passionate manner.
              This knee-jerk "the other side said it, thus it is to be loathed" reaction is something that annoys me in conservatives.
              But it is far worse seeing it from people whom I share most political viewpoints with.

              •  That is exactly what he is doing. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CalexanderJ, Plantsmantx
                The best way to get Republicans to read a book about reaching out for the black vote, I thought, was to detail the Democratic Party’s long history of maltreatment of blacks. After all, the party was based in the South for 100 years after the war, and all of the ugly racism we associate with that region was enacted and enforced by Democratic politicians. I was surprised that such a book didn’t already exist.
                I thought knowing the Democratic Party’s pre-1964 history of racism, which is indisputable, would give Republicans a story to tell when they went before black groups to solicit votes. I thought it would also make Republicans more sympathetic to the problems of the black community, many of which are historical in their origins. Analyses by economists and sociologists show that historical racism still holds back African-Americans even though it has diminished radically since the 1960s.
                So I wrote Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Unfortunately, it was published the day Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses.
                I'm basing what I say on what he actually said not on, "the other side said it, thus it is to be loathed". He's campaigning against the Democratic Party of decades ago. He knows that African-Americans used to vote Republican once upon a time, but he doesn't understand why they switched. He assumes that African-Americans are too ignorant to understand the history of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Yes, he is attempting to reach out to African-Americans, but he is doing so in a clueless manner.

                The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

                by A Citizen on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 08:38:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read again what Bartlett 'already said' (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharon Wraight

                  "when before black groups to solicit votes"
                  "make Republicans more sympathetic to the problem of the black community"
                  "historical racism still holds back African-Americans"
                  To read these statements and conclude that Bartlett is simply "trying to run against the Democratic Party of many decades ago" is absurd.
                  "He assumes African-Americans are too ignorant to understand the history of [the parties]."
                  sigh You realize that this is an example of "running on the history of many decades ago"?

                  •  You're cherry-picking. (0+ / 0-)

                    "when before black groups to solicit votes" What about it? The GOP would like to get the African-American vote, but they don't know how.

                    "make Republicans more sympathetic to the problem of the black community" It's a nice bit of fluff, but does it really mean anything?

                    "historical racism still holds back African-Americans" You cut out the rest of the sentence which says "even though it has diminished radically since the 1960s." This looks like whitewashing of the racism of today. There are many people who try to dismiss the racism by saying it's merely "residual racism".

                    To read these statements and conclude that Bartlett is simply "trying to run against the Democratic Party of many decades ago" is absurd.
                    To read only those statements and reach that conclusion would indeed be absurd. To read the rest of his statements and conclude anything else but that he is running against the Democratic Party of many decades ago is absurd.
                    "He assumes African-Americans are too ignorant to understand the history of [the parties]."
                    sigh You realize that this is an example of "running on the history of many decades ago"?
                    No, it's not. It's the opposite. He's looking at how the parties were many decades ago, I'm looking at what they are today. If he wants the GOP to win back the African-American vote, he's going to have to acknowledge that the Republican Party has a racism problem. He's trying to message his way out of it, but the problem is not a message problem. It's not how they communicate to African Americans, the problem is their policies.

                    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

                    by A Citizen on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 03:26:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  *sigh* (0+ / 0-)

                      "[racism has] diminished radically since the 1960s"
                      Uh......It has. This is as basic of a fact as there is.

                      However, instead of trying critique your post, let us return to the main point:
                      You are attacking an article that (a) Wants the GOP to be reality-based, & (b) be more accessible to minorities.
                      Which one of those two things do you disagree with?

                      •  *Sigh* (0+ / 0-)

                        I disagree with neither. The problem is that his methods obviously fail to accomplish either. He's not being reality-based. He's ignoring the rampant racism in the Republican Party.  In order to make the GOP more accessible to minorities, the GOP must understand why minorities find the GOP unappealing. There is a reason African-Americans left the Republican Party, but he doesn't understand this.

                        But instead of asking the GOP to change its ways, he thinks that African-Americans will come around if only the Republican Party talks about racism of many decades ago in the Democratic Party.

                        How many African-American votes did "Barack the Magic Negro" win for the Republican Party? How many African-American votes did Republicans distributing pictures of Obama with watermelon and fried chicken win for the Republican Party. If the Republican Party wants to win over African-Americans, getting rid of racism like this would be a good start.

                        Just because he has some good things to say doesn't mean that this is one of them. But go ahead and have the last word if you want. I can only lead the horse to water so long.

                        The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

                        by A Citizen on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:26:52 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  "methods fail to accomplish either" (0+ / 0-)

                          Yes....that is the point of his article.
                          The GOP HASN'T followed his viewpoint.
                          "How many African-Americans did Republicans distributing pictures of Obama with watermelon and fried chicken win for the Republican Party."
                          None. Thus Bartlett's scathingly critical critique of the GOP.
                          "can only lead the horse to water"
                          Or you can try reading the actual article, instead of whatever the hell it is you think you are commenting on.
                          Just a thought.....

  •  Unfortunately his book was (0+ / 0-)

    published on the day that Obama won the Iowa caucuses? Wow what a dick! Poor Bruce he wrote a book missing one of the major milestones in history. Or did he forget that Obama had made a dramatic speech at the Dem Convention in 2004. Or that he had won a US Senate seat in 2006?

    Apparently he couldn't see what was going on under his own nose because he was wedded to his narrative. Jeeze what a brilliant analytical mind!

    In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

    by vcmvo2 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:07:35 PM PST

    •  Obama was running for US Senate in 2004 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      not 2006, and won it that year.  

      I knew by the spring of 2008 that the Democrats would nominate Obama or Clinton.  Bruce Bartlett must have been inside the conservative bubble to have missed the signs.  

  •  flat out denies that the southern strategy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dbug

    ever existed.

    I used to think better of him, but several years ago it came to my attention that he was no better than these clowns who play on the lack of historical knowledge of the average person  by trying to perpetrate that the Democratic Party of the old south is identical with the Democratic Party of today.

    I could never respect this kind of deeply cynical hack-style dishonesty.

    nothin' to see here folks, just a massive labor uprising.

    by WesEverest on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:07:40 PM PST

  •  Cost to cost Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Patate
    That's why white voters opted for Romney 84-15 in Alabama, and 89-10 in Mississippi this year—because they've inherited the Dixiecrat legacy. It cost Democrats dearly as a national party for two generations, and will cost Democrats dearly in the South for a distressingly long time, but we finally get to reap the rewards of discarding the bigots and racists from our own ranks.
    Perhaps not as long as we think.

    2000-2010 Change in Percentage minority
    34.2% --> 40.0% South as a whole
    47.6% --> 54.7% TX (38 electoral votes)
    34.6% --> 42.1% FL (29)
    37.4% --> 44.1% GA (16)
    29.8% --> 34.7% NC (15)
    29.8% --> 35.2% VA (13)

    We all know the story in Texas, and the impact in FL was talked about after the election.  But the growth of non-whites in GA, NC and VA has been large in the past decade.  There's little doubt it will grow larger the rest of this decade.  The racists and bigots have a large chunk of the populations in those states that they can piss off.

    GA
    53.30% Romney
    45.48% Obama

    52.20% McCain
    46.99% Obama

    Those are surprisingly good numbers when we think of GA as part of the deep Red south.  The actually aren't that long off from joining FL as purple, similar to Texas eventually.

    •  I looked at the margins since 1992 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      when Clinton won Georgia.  For Democrats it looks like this:  
      1992  +.6
      1996  -1.2
      2000 -11.7
      2004 -16.6
      2008  -5.2
      2012  -7.9

      I really don't know what to make of that trend.  Obviously Obama did better, but Gore and Kerry were huge drops compared to Clinton.

  •  It's really a shame (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, CT Hank, Sharon Wraight

    that you posted only that part of a fairly long article, but it is good to be reminded about how conservatives think.
    Nonetheless, it's a good column once you get past the whining.
    I've heard Bruce on the radio several times, and I follow him on Twitter. We disagree on a lot, but we agree on a lot too.

    The economy continues to conform to textbook Keynesianism. We still need more aggregate demand, and the Republican idea that tax cuts for the rich will save us becomes more ridiculous by the day. People will long remember Mitt Romney’s politically tone-deaf attack on half the nation’s population for being losers, leeches, and moochers because he accurately articulated the right-wing worldview.

    At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular.

    I am disinclined to think that Republicans are yet ready for a serious questioning of their philosophy or strategy. They comfort themselves with the fact that they held the House (due to gerrymandering) and think that just improving their get-out-the-vote system and throwing a few bones to the Latino community will fix their problem. There appears to be no recognition that their defects are far, far deeper and will require serious introspection and rethinking of how Republicans can win going forward. The alternative is permanent loss of the White House and probably the Senate as well, which means they can only temporarily block Democratic initiatives and never advance their own.

    We need more Republicans like this.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:15:59 PM PST

  •  Truly delusional. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Patate

    The Republican Party was once the liberal party of civil rights. The Democratic Party was once the conservative racist party. That past has never been covered up. If I lived far enough back in the past, I'd be a Republican.

    When Ronald Reagan said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me," he's talking about the Democratic Party turnings its back on its racist past.

    The ideological shift didn't happen overnight. FDR created the Fair Employment Practices Commission, requiring that companies with government contracts not to discriminate on the basis of race or religion.

    In 1948, northern Democrats got a civil rights into the platform of the Democratic Party. The racist Democrats didn't like this one bit, leading to comments like "You shall not crucify the South on this cross of civil rights".

    Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign was based on opposition to civil rights, opposition to desegregation, and opposition to federal anti-lynching laws. Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964.

    Those Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not be welcome in the Republican Party of today.

    African-Americans know the past. Attempting to appeal to them by running against the Democratic Party of 50 years ago is doomed to failure.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:18:26 PM PST

    •  In 1948, a young mayor from Minneapolis (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight, MsLiz

      gave a speech in favor of expanded civil rights for Negroes (as they were called at the time) that electrified the Democratic National Convention. Hubert Humphrey convinced the delegates to reject the platform committee's bland civil rights plank in favor of the more progressive minority plank (which said, "racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, and the right to vote"). Southern Dems walked out of the convention and went back home to nominate the Dixiecrat candidate (with the slogan "Segregation Forever").

      A week or two after the convention, President Truman signed the executive order desegregating the armed forces. Which pissed off the southern Dixiecrats even more. Truman barely won the election. And that's why the young Hubert Humphrey is a hero of mine. The older Vice Presidential HHH, meh, not so much (in 1968, I was only 12, but my dad liked Eugene McCarthy, so I did too).

      Here's the speech from YouTube (audio only with lots of crackling and static):

      “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

      by Dbug on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 08:32:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did you read Krugman's post? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, CT Hank, RichM, Sharon Wraight

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...

    I think Paul is right, it was here is a guy showing a little courage and honesty and you call him a dick.  

    If we use the same tactics, the same demonization of conservatives that they use about us liberals, then we are no better than them.  

    A little graciousness is in order for any conservative who abandons the fantasy-based community of wingnutdom.  

  •  This sounds a bit like Christine Todd Whitman's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, milkbone

    screed of a book about how her Republican party was stolen from her by crazy conservatives.  She didn't apparently notice while she was lowering taxes and bankrupting NJ's public employees pension system and having her picture taken out in a canoe while at the same type she was weakening environmental legislation.  They all come to this revelation after they have worked to make the world worse.

    And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

    by MrJersey on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:22:48 PM PST

  •  And in 2008? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    What do we use to account for the 2008 election, in which Obama Obama lost AL by 38.8 to McCain's 60.4% of the popular vote? Or MS, where he lost 42.8 to 56.4%? Did a lot more racists move into these states in the intervening years? Not to mention the not-particularly-Dixiecrat state of Idaho where McCain did even better, at 61.5% to Obama's 36.1. And really not to mention AK in 2008, where those former slave-holders rejected Obama 37.7 to 60.2%.

    I think this theory needs a lot of asterisks** and not a little refinement.

    **For instance, here I report simply popular vote. Kos's racial vote stats are presumably from exit polls, whose accuracies would at least need discussion.

    •  Idaho isn't Dixiecrat, (0+ / 0-)

      as you've noted. But it's a very white state.

      Utah has a lot of Mormon influence in the south (near Utah) and White Christian Identity Aryans in the north. Not entirely (there are pockets of liberal Democrats here and there).

      One of the great senators from Idaho was Frank Church. He was against the Viet Nam War and in favor of protecting the environment.

      “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

      by Dbug on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 08:45:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  White potatoes (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, Idaho is pretty white, but that's not what was at issue in the question of whether there is some resurgent remnant of Confederate racism. As I said, the thought still stands in need of more work.

  •  My wife, who was born and grew up in the South... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    is well aware of the reality, as I am (I grew up in southern Arizona). I used to be a Republican up until Watergate and the Southern Strategy.  Nixon ruined the party and Reagan nearly finished it off.  However it has been left to the #$@% Tea Party to turn a once right of center party into a totally racist, misogynist, corporate Fascist organization.  We really need a responsible right of center party, but we get this gang of self-centered, greedy, anti-Democratic jerks. Having rid themselves of any sane party leaders they ARE the Dixiecrats!

    Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower must be spinning in their graves, and ever Ronald Reagan may be disquieted.  He would be considered a Communist by some of these characters. I fear for the future when 600,000 + of these people actually would sign a request for secession!  

    God (if there is one) help us all!

  •  Chris Christie is a 'sellout' after praising Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril

    Bruce Bartlett is a 'irredeemable dick' for one of the most scorching critiques of the dangerous inability of the GOP to base decisions on reality.
    For Pete's Sake, a Republican could save Kos from a pack of bears, and he would call him an 'animal torturing sadist'.
    Let's take individual actions on their merit & not the political party of the person committing the action.
    The GOP acts batshit often enough (as Bartlett's article shows) that we have plenty of things we can reasonably criticize.

  •  It always stuns me. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, Plantsmantx

    Every time, even though I see it in so many places, it stuns the hell out of me. Republicans try to say that because the Democrats were once the party of racists (and, yeah, it was)  it remains so?

    The defection of racists to the Republicans during the Civil Rights era is such a clear-cut historical fact I can't believe any Republican would even want to bring up any of that history.

    www.stacysmusings.wordpress.com

    by Magenta on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:40:48 PM PST

  •  All of you who are gleefully castigating Bartlett (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, CT Hank, concernedamerican, Dbug, RichM

    apparently don't know when you've got a gift dropped in your lap. If I had a dollar for every time a Kossack was whining about their krazy uncle ranting about liberals over the last 6 years I'd be a rich man, and if I had a dime for every post over the last 12 months about the incredibly closed bubble that conservatives and Republicans live in I'd be even richer. When sensible liberals are presented with a guy with impeccable conservative credentials who has on his own recognized the exact same epistemic closure that we all make fun of, they might consider forwarding his article to their crazy uncles and asshole Limbaugh-worshipping bosses, if for no other reason than to open up their eyes to the fact that even people within their own sphere recognize the insanity that's overtaken them. Instead, you piss all over him as though he's some Nazi functionary pleading for mercy at Nuremburg. Is Bartlett still deluded about race? Absolutely. But refusing to acknowledge his transformation, and those of Frum and Sullivan, bespeaks a remarkably pig-headed and ultimately self-defeating approach to practical politics.

    •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CT Hank

      I've seen Bartlett on Moyers and also on a CSPAN panel over the last year.  In those discussions I was gratified to hear from a conservative with serious credentials calling out republicans as "nuts." This urge to bury him with epithets is ugly as well as foolish.  Rather, I'm actually listening.

  •  The limits of "the enemy of my enemy..." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plantsmantx

    "...is my friend" is named Bruce Bartlett.  That limit is the sweep of the feelings you have when you read his American Conservative piece and 1st identify intensely with the George W paragraph, 2nd find yourself cheering the scales falling from his eyes, then 3rd remember what douches the man and his friends are, in fact.

    This man is not your friend.

    •  So....you're saying you play cards with Obama? (0+ / 0-)

      You don't have to be 'pals' in order to appreciate a piece of writing, legislation, plan etc.
      Unless you plan on voting based on 'who you'd rather have a beer with', of course........

      •  I'm saying don't buy policy from this silver (0+ / 0-)

        tongued Bush basher.

        His "Keynesian conversion" may be real enough, but it will probably only extend so far as ramping up defense spending as "stimulus" while seeking to cut back Social Security. ...Wait, he already did that back in Reagan's day.

  •  Stone the converts! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM

    Is it obtuse of Bartlett--and likely intellectually dishonest--to spin the issue of race and American politics the way he did? Yes. Does he come off as overly concerned with how his writings play in the market? Yes.

    But that is only part of a long essay that depicts an ongoing intellectual transformation that those of us on the Left ought to welcome. Wasn't Kos once a Republican? What Bartlett wrote at TAC was an essay in which paragraph after paragraph details how he realized he was wrong on fundamental issues and how he is finding himself--as he absorbs and accepts facts as facts--on the "center-left."

    An "irredeemable dick?" God forbid someone should move in our direction in fits and starts. It seems rather dickish to take the totality of that essay--in a conservative venue, no less--and get out of it that Bruce Bartlett is "irredeemable." Barack Obama ran as a candidate who would restore civil liberties and then turned around and cemented in place most of the Bush/Cheney police state. That seems far more consequential than Bruce Bartlett's inability to honestly face the facts of how the GOP has used race as a wedge issue. But Kos would not call the President an "irredeemable dick" over his "kill list."

    I've seen this before here at DKos. Folks used to attack Andrew Sullivan the same way. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with criticizing Bartlett on the race aspect of the essay--the criticism is justified. But you know what? If instead of being a dick, you addressed the criticism to him in a respectful and direct manner, he seems like a guy who, these days, might actually consider it and change his view.

    But I guess we have enough folks on the center-left these days and don't need to welcome anybody else to join us.

    •  you have to read his whole piece (0+ / 0-)

      to get the gut response Kos, and many others commenting here, felt, including myself of "What a Dick!!!"

      I was thrilled when I saw the link to the piece on a site somewhere. Thrilled when I saw the title. "its possible there are some who can be reached! hooray!"

      then I read his piece.

      on and on and on about both his conservative beliefs--(such as: 'supply side as implemented by Reagan worked! it really really did!' and 'Bush was NOT a REAL conservative because he ran up the deficit and spent so much AND created a huge new entitlement, real conservatives CUT entitlements.') and RW bonafides, bragging about his big policy-making jobs, mixed in with constant whining about how he never got the respect (book sales i.e. $$$) he thought he deserved in the conservative world.

      in fact, here's his opening thesis statement, end of 1st paragraph:

      Those who were wrong should be purged and ignored; those who were right, especially those who inflicted maximum discomfort on movement conservatives in being right, ought to get credit for it and become regular reading for them once again.
      finally at the end he embraces Keynesian economics was the right solution to the Depression of the 30s--which he discovered while researching a new book on this topic.
      Having been deeply involved in its development, I felt that everything important the supply-siders had to say had now been fully incorporated into mainstream economics. All that was left was nutty stuff like the Laffer Curve that alienated academic economists who were otherwise sympathetic to the supply-side view. I said the supply-siders should declare victory and go home.

      I decided to write a book elaborating my argument.

      he very briefly admits Keynesianism is the right solution now. that's about it. nothing deeper, no recant of Conservatism or Republicanism or their methods of achieving electoral victory (fear/smear/racism...) or the reasons they lost now other than returning to that brief and really stupid idea of appealing to blacks by pointing out Democrats used to be racist along time ago. 'buy my book: Listen to me, me, me!!!!!'

      Overwhelming losses by Republicans to all the nation’s nonwhite voters have created a Democratic coalition that will govern the nation for the foreseeable future.

      Tellingly, a key reason for Obama’s victory, according to exit polls, is none other than George W. Bush, whom 60 percent of voters primarily blame for the nation’s economic woes—an extraordinary fact when he has been out of office for four years. Even though they didn’t read my Impostor book, voters still absorbed its message.*

      Although the approach I suggested in my race book was ill-timed, the underlying theory is more true than ever. If Republicans can’t bring blacks into their coalition, they are finished at the presidential level, given the rapid rise of the Latino population. Perhaps after 2016, they may be willing to put my strategy into operation.


      *really? the message that he wasn't conservative enough? um, No.

      He begrudgingly says Krugman was right about everything but couched in a bunch of insults and describing how annoyed it made him.

      yeah along the way he calls ou the bubble dwellers for living in the bubble. mainly because they didn't listen to him and banished him. big whoop.

      Hardly a convert to our side. Hardly the happy ending story of someone joining the Reality-based community.

      I wanted to like this guy, I wanted to celebrate him. Instead he left me feeling like I wanted to slap him upside the head. "you still don't f*cking get it do you!"

      no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

      by srfRantz on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Being a "dick" and being an "irredeemable dick" (0+ / 0-)

        There are plenty of insufferable dicks over on our side of the political divide, too.

        I did read the whole article. It reads like someone who is confronting the fact that major elements of his worldview were wrong.

        Which is not to say that the substantive criticism you and Kos make aren't valid. They are. But perhaps a better strategy is to reach out to someone like Bartlett, whose view of the world appears to be in flux, in principled yet civil argument. Krugman, by the way, doesn't see Bartlett's comments about him in the same light as you. My most profound objection is with the adjective "irredeemable" (although if you want to encourage somebody's apparent political evolution in your direction, slapping them with the noun "dick" is not likely to be helpful). By the very nature of Bartlett's essay, it seems that he might, in fact, be "redeemable."

        This site tolerates lots of Democrats who defend drone murder, pooh-pooh the psychological torture of Bradley Manning, dismiss concerns about indefinite detention, downplay the fact that no architects of torture and no big banksters were prosecuted (in fact, they were protected from judicial accountability). Prior to Obama's Presidency, people who did that would have generally been seen as dickish authoritarians on a liberal, Democratic site. Are they irredeemable?

        •  agreed and well said (0+ / 0-)
          There are plenty of insufferable dicks over on our side of the political divide, too.
          no doubt about that!

          and I apologize for my opening line, realized afterward that it could be taken as a smart ass crack at you. what I meant was to describe my feelings after reading the whole article and its effect on me. So I could explain Kos' response--via mine.  

          I agree with this too:

          a better strategy is to reach out to someone like Bartlett, whose view of the world appears to be in flux, in principled yet civil argument
          altho I still think he's totally a dick and pretty much irredeemable as evidenced by the constant whining and hedging in his article as I pointed out.

          but just because they've called us every hideous and hateful name in the book for the past 30 years as part and parcel of their strategy of 'demonize them if we can't beat them on facts, reason and ideas'...doesn't mean we have to follow suit when they do admit being beat...I suppose...

          damn, you 'we're better than that' types take all the fun out of gloating. ;-)

          no man is completely worthless, he can always be used as a bad example.

          by srfRantz on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:51:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  When i lived in Mississippi 1950s and 60s, i (0+ / 0-)

    couldn't tell the difference between the two parties. So this guy is ignorant. He imply around 97% of black people who became and voted Democratic party are stupid. We knew the party more likely to be kluxerish and decided not to HANG around.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site