Project Wonderful Banner

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Those damned White People

What's Mallard raving about today?

Rural, working-class white people, Howard Dean, The DNC, The Founders.

Come again? What exact rural working-class white people are being disenfranchised by the Democratic Party?

Not voting for presumptive nominee Barack Obama is not the same as being disenfranchised. Any more than voting for Mike Huckabee disenfranchised Religious Right voters in the Republican race.

And Straw Howard Dean is wrong...the Founders never intended Black people to have the right to vote.


exanonymous said...

I'd cry racist but he established that's what people do when they're wrong and disagree with him.

So I'll go with creepy bigoted idiot hell-bent on maintaining the oxymoron of white male dominance and self-castrated victimhood.

Starshark said...

Admittedly I'm Australian (though I'm studying American history at uni), but I can't seem to find anything in the Constitution regarding how primaries and caucuses should be run. Can Tinsley help me out here?

Anonymous said...

If it's a slap at not seating the Florida & Michigan delegates, I think that Miami and Detroit don't have many rural voters that would be "disenfranchised."

Celia said...

Reading back on the Something Awful thread about gives me quite enough of this kind of thing without Tinhat joining in. Perhaps he posts there. He's certainly mad enough.

Next week: "the African-Americans are taking over the party, we have to show them that white people are still the majority around here!"

(also, I'm pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were generally down on anyone too different from them having the right to vote - much like in other countries of the time run by powerful wealthy white men)

Anonymous said...

Rousing up rural, working-class, white resentment against urbanites, blacks, Jews, and immigrants...isn't the the way the Ku Klux Klan re-started itself back in the early 1920s? With a vengeance?

12xuser said...

I have to say I don't know WTF he is getting at here. Is it possible that Tinsley looked through his magic whiskey glass three weeks into the future and saw that the DNC rules committee was meeting today to decide the status of MI and FL? If so, then what anonymous said. I don't think there's any way you can spin excluding MI and FL into disenfranchising rural whites.

On the contrary, none of the candidates were opposed to cutting off MI and FL back when it happened. They were all spouting nonsense about preserving the sanctity of the Iowa caucuses and NH primary, with all of their rural white-assed voters.

rewinn said...

I was going to say that, once again, Tinsely is merely doing his "Proof By Naked Assertion" act; that is, he's claiming Dean is trying to do something and the only proof of it is Tinsley's naked assertion.

And he seeks extra point for dragging Dean into something that Dean's not fighting over; clearly Tinsley's demigods at the RNC are worried over Dean's "50-state-strategy".

BUT --- the historical irony is that in fact our American founding fathers DID seek to keep rural poor farmers and workers from voting. That's why states were allowed to set their own voting requirements, such as landholding and/or wealth requirements. It's not taught in school history but a HUGE part of the political battles in our nation have been precisely on that point, and the Tories who are the ideological heirs of Tinsley were on the wrong side.

IIRC Lomax's biography of Aaron Burr for some entertaining stories on that point.

We must love and respect our Founders, but let's not assume they were perfect.

rewinn said...

Extra point to 12xuser for pointing out that Iowa and NH are the rural working-class white voter states that are empowered by enforcing the existing rules against MI & FL's moving primary dates up.

Since IA and NH are in play it appears that Tinsley's more than a little confused ... or more likely, seeks to add to the confusion.

(P.S. apologies for grammatical confusions in my post above ... obiviously it's Tinsley who is the ideological heir of the Tories, and not the other way round. And my sentence about Burr needs a verb or something. Maybe if I'd used a four-dot ellipsis .... )