Speaker Pelosi is more likely than Majority Leader Schumer.
Hey, thanks for checking in and giving an update. As the returns came in last night, I couldn’t help but think of your post. When you made it, I tried to put myself in your shoes… and realized how excruciating it must be for you on a daily basis. Glad to hear you enjoyed a respite!
Also very cool to learn about your colleagues’ decisions. Obviously your conversations with them, along with Richard Shelby’s Road Map for Ashamed Republican Voters, did make a difference – a big difference. That’s the best we can do in our current circumstances: Keep talking! (I’m sure you will.)
Yeah, but where’s it moving on to?
Thanks for sharing. I figured to see a Gingrich- or Coulter-type, blabbering lies from every orifice, but instead he was a genuine tongue-tied imbecile, astounded to learn non-Christians were legally permitted to sit in Congress. And he was elected to public office? I realize Lynyrd Skynyrd didn’t even come from Alabama (though mises.org does 
). Do we know what the average IQ is in Alabama?
High enough to send Moore and the dude from the video packing.
Julian Castro thinks that Texas will flip and Ted Cruz will be gone. I post this here because he’s extrapolating from the Alabama result. Well Julian, you’ve been cited as a potential superstar in the Democratic Party, so why not man up and run statewide against Cruz?
- He can’t do it now, since the filing deadline for the primary was December 11.
- He doesn’t want to create a big primary fight against his friend Beto O’Rourke who got in first.
I took one for the team and listened to the first minute:
Anybody know what he’s talking about?
White Christian racists are suffering a great deal in this world of evolution and increasing tolerance and acceptance. It’s rough out there for guys like him.
Apparently he thought he was running for Messiah.
Sorry, the job’s taken: http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef01310fc7a350970c-800wi
Here’s CNN with “the inside story of the GOP’s Alabama meltdown”: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/politics/alabama-senate-election/index.html
I live here. In my area, it’s Alabamians. And chekck out nGrams
Add an “s” so we can better see we’re talking about people and not “Alabaman summers” and the difference is larger.
I’ll be honest - “Alabaman” just slightly annoys me. It’s one of those things that just looks wrong when I see it. Not that I loathe it, but it does bug me. Bugs me more when someone says “we prefer Alabamian” and “Alabaman” is still used. But nGrams does indicate a history of “Alabamans,” too.
And, well, no need to comment on the actual subject line, anymore. 
Culture Wars. The same battle this iteration of the GOP has been fighting/using as a distraction since Nixon’s Silent Majority.
You can trace it back to the split between the Whigs and the Jacksonian Democrats, but let’s keep this to the 20th Century, beginning when the South lost the Civil War. Back in the 1960s, there was a culmination of a decades-long Civil Rights struggle, as Blacks gained freedom and liberty not only de jure but also de facto, official color lines were broken, Jim Crow was not only repealed but more effectively dismantled, and Whites could lose the fucking election because a bunch of Nnnnew Voters didn’t like them and their Klannish ways. You can see how this would cause some discomfort among people who held to their race as a core of their identity, and, more importantly, a distinguishing feature which would forever put them Not At The Bottom of the social hierarchy. Poor Whites weren’t going to be at the top, but they damned well would never be at the bottom as long as Those People could be held down.
Anyway, during the Civil Rights era, the wheels began to come off that social order, and the Democrats helped it along with the Civil Rights Acts, not to mention Johnson’s enforcement of Federal supremacy during the school integration crisis and similar events; the Civil War ended when a Federalized National Guard decisively overruled local law enforcement. By 1964, Johnson won in a landslide but the Republican Goldwater carried the Deep South, the first Republican to do so since Reconstruction, and the line had been drawn: The Republicans were the Party of Traditional Values, the Democrats, the Party of Civil Rights.
Richard Nixon (R-Paranoia) came to power in a time which is remembered as being Scary And Confusing because it was precisely that for White Middle America, the people who weren’t Black, gay, or being shot at. So, women getting more power in the home and workplace? Scary And Confusing. You can’t hardly tell Coon Jokes without someone giving you the stinkeye? Scary And Confusing. Obviously, America needs a man who respects Law And Order, and Lawnorder Nixon is just the man to ensure the Subversive Elements don’t subvert Our Way Of Life.
All he had to do was dog-whistle. He could be Concerned About State’s Rights, and know that the Right the States wanted was the one which kept Blacks disenfranchised. (Stats Rats goes back to the Civil War, BTW. Dog whistles age really, really well, and become family heirlooms.) He could message his base, his Silent Majority of people who weren’t out demonstrating and chanting slogans (now that the Klan was mostly dead) but who were deeply concerned about social changes. Call him on it… and he’d probably do a good job of deflecting and changing the subject, Nixon was a smart man, despite his sanity deficiency, but the point is, the advantage of a dog whistle is that if you notice it, you must be the one reading ill intent into it, and that says bad things about you, doesn’t it? When done by a competent rhetorical craftsman, it’s clever, but when done by modern GOPpers, it’s a linguistic game of “I’M NOT TOUCHING YOU!”
Nixon’s successor in interest, Reagan, did the same trick, only with “welfare queens” (Black women on welfare who were supposedly living it up with lobsters and Cadillacs and if your blood isn’t boiling you either know something about welfare or you’re Not A Real American) and got people who actually were on welfare to vote in an administration which helped demolish it. He also helped destroy regulation and, generally, leveraged racism into give-aways to big business.
And that’s the deal: For decades, the GOP has been using fear of social change, a lot of it driven by inherent hatreds such as racism and homophobia and transphobia, to get votes for business-friendly candidates, to the point now that opposition to capital gains tax is practically dogmatic Christianity among some sects. Supply-Side Jesus is real, and all tax is an abomination in His eyes. This keeps the bigotry in the public view, and legitimizes it by giving it a whole mainstream political party to support it, even if the people who spread it around don’t believe it in, personally.
Roy Moore likely does believe it. He’s likely just as bigoted as he comes off, and not playing to the cameras. But the only reason guys like him have a whole party is the fact he is, essentially, a Useful Idiot, Stalin’s term for someone who could be counted on to support the Soviet Union abroad because they actually believed the propaganda. Here’s hoping people like him are becoming less useful over time.
Congressman Beto O’Rourke is running against him.
You’re a few decades off there.
You need to read further into my post to see the point I’m making.
Actually, the concept of states’ rights as opposed to federal power goes back to well before the Civil War. Indeed, it was fought over at the Constitutional Convention, it was the subject of much discussion during the period of the Articles of Confederation, and it caused significant issues during the nebulous period of the Revolution before those Articles were adopted, when we were a country without a real federal government; just a bunch of guys winging it and making it up as they went along.
Further, “states’ rights” aren’t inherently something that are “bad”. Good, solid arguments can be made for why the federal government shouldn’t have free reign over everything in our lives, with states unable to retain sphere’s of legislative influence. It’s a sad thing that the concept was so thoroughly captured by the pro-slavery, later pro-discrimination forces, because it makes any discussion of states’ rights inevitably veer into territory it really should steer clear of. 
States’ Rights as a dog-whistle goes back to the period preceding the Civil War, but I’d argue it became more of a “pure” dog-whistle, divorced of its literal meaning, when its literal meaning of “More Rights For Individual States” was trampled by the Fugitive Slave Laws which the Southern states forced on the Northern states. Once Northern states no longer had the right to harbor people who had escaped slavery, “states’ rights” as a legitimate concept was dead and States’ Rights as a dog-whistle was all the meaning the phrase had left.
The dog-whistle must be minimally palatable, or at least unoffensive, to the people who aren’t supposed to pick up on its secondary, more important meaning. Yes, in the Federal system we have, states do have many rights, and that is an important part of our system of government. Being against states having rights is impossible unless you want to completely tear down the Constitution.
Fortunately, nobody is seriously proposing removing all the rights states have and introducing a completely unitary government. Instead, we use the question of how many rights states have as a proxy for the question people really want to fight about, which is how much voter suppression are states going to be allowed to engage in and how gerrymandered districts are going to be, and it is a shame that that’s what the phrase means, but it’s the world we’ve lived in, in one form or another, for longer than any of us have been alive.