First, if you want to understand someone don't begin the effort by assuming negative things about them. That's foolish and bigotted. People are people, they are shaped by their environment, their background, their opportunities, their history, the information they receive, and other factors too numerous to mention. But for the most part they are just PEOPLE, and we are no better.

Poor Republicans are motivated by the same things as poor Democrats. They want a better job, better food, a clean and safe place to live, security, a better life for their kids. Just like us. And whether you are a poor Democrat or a poor Republican one thing is sure: neither party particularly cares about you.

Poor Republicans have been told is that they can't get a job because evil liberals are destroying American businesses with over taxation and over regulation, that union workers (with their massive salaries and insane benefits) are bankrupting our industries, that public workers are doing the same on the taxpayer's dime, and that the country is going broke trying to feed the welfare state. And it makes sense to them, largely because there is just enough truth in there to make it plausible -- there are a good many Democrats who care more about the liberal crusades of the wealthy than they do about poor people. So when someone like Rush says that the reason the factories have all closed down is because liberals put them out of business, they believe it. When Rush says that they could have jobs drilling our oil, but the liberals are stopping it, well a high-paying job like that sound bloody nice. Better still, it's a message of hope that leaves them as the blameless victims of liberalism.

And again, what's their best interest? What, exactly, has OUR party done to help them? We're the ones who passed NAFTA and outsourced their jobs. And it's not like we are offering them anything better.

Now mind you, I am a proud LIBERAL, bordering on being a socialist, but I know this: if you want to win someone's vote you have to offer them some reason to vote for you. And we're not getting it done. We're not ending the wars, we're not cutting the defense budget, we're not rebuilding our infrastructure, we're expanding free trade, we're apparently leading the crusade to wreck social security, we're passing permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, and we're bailing out billionaire bankers while the people lose their homes. One in five American children went to bed tonight without FOOD, they went to bed hungry. One in ten didn't have a bed of their own at all because they're homeless. A million American kids are hoping Santa brings them a freaking COAT for Christmas because they're fucking cold.

And we're talking about gun control. We're talking about global warming while American children freeze. We're talking about Fukushima and John Boehner's tears. Our party is every bit as "into" austerity as the GOP. No one gives a shit about the poor until it's time for them to vote.

Which is a long way of saying this: before you judge people try and see things from their point of view, and don't rush to assume the negative things you hear about them are true. If we want the poor to vote for us then we need to stop insulting them and offer them something better. They aren't voting GOP because they're racist, they're voting GOP because the GOP is telling them that they will get them a job. The GOP is telling them that they will get them a job, and we're telling them we'll try and get them some welfare once we take care of the bankers and union workers and professors.

This was Lyndon Johnson, who'd observed a thing or two, and some of us have too.

I don't 'judge,' I observe, and I observe gop isn't getting anyone a job, just keeping the high-rollers in their 'jobs,' and doing their best to keep Dems from providing food and food stamps for the poor, and keeping Dems from addressing infrastructure, among other things.

And, we might consider the socio-political context of Johnson's statement -- that's certainly relevant.

where you got the information that 10% of the children in this country are homeless. After you show me that , I've got lots more questions about the "facts" in your post.

But my response was to the OP which claimed they do vote, and against their own interests, because they are apparently racists or some such.

We ARE ending the Bush wars. We already ended the Iraq War, and Afghanistan is slowly being drawn to a close.

We are not "leading the crusade to wreck social security." That would be the Kochs' lapdog, Paul Ryan, who wants to privatize it and turn Medicare into a voucher that buys you squat.

Dems are constantly proposing jobs and infrastructure plans, but the Republicans are constantly blocking them. We slip them in when we can, like the $2.8 billion Ohio River bridge project that Feinstein tucked into the debt ceiling bill that just got passed.

What has our party done for the poor? It just gave the working poor affordable health insurance for the first time in their lives. That alone will save the lives of 45,000 poor people each year. It is trying to raise the minimum wage. It took a stand to protect food stamp benefits; that's why the Republican's Farm Bill, which decoupled food stamps for the first time and sought to cut them severely, was blocked by Dems.

But the poor would never know that listening to you. Yet, ironically, you bitch about the OP's messaging.

Your responses are bolded.

We ARE ending the Bush wars. We already ended the Iraq War, and Afghanistan is slowly being drawn to a close.

At some point the wars President Bush started become President Obama's. Considering we have now extended the Afghan war, extended it mind you, for longer than we fought in World War II, it's probably safe to say that point is long since past. That's five EXTRA YEARS of killing and dying with no plan or even goal of actually winning anything. We're just there to be there, like a bad habit or a loveless marriage.

We are not "leading the crusade to wreck social security." That would be the Kochs' lapdog, Paul Ryan, who wants to privatize it and turn Medicare into a voucher that buys you squat.

I guess you have forgotten our President's repeated proposals for Chained CPI. Understand this: chained CPI is the end of Social Security. That crap passes and it's finished. It will go private within a decade, and for good reason.

Dems are constantly proposing jobs and infrastructure plans, but the Republicans are constantly blocking them. We slip them in when we can, like the $2.8 billion Ohio River bridge project that Feinstein tucked into the debt ceiling bill that just got passed.

Perhaps you are correct and I missed President Obama's massive infrastructure spending plan. It must be pretty impressive. Got a link?

What has our party done for the poor? It just gave the working poor affordable health insurance for the first time in their lives. That alone will save the lives of 45,000 poor people each year.

Actually, so far all we have given them is a mandated insurance bill first proposed by the Heritage Foundation. It remains to be seen how well that translates into affordable healthcare. I have my doubts, but I damn sure hope I am wrong.

It is trying to raise the minimum wage. It took a stand to protect food stamp benefits; that's why the Republican's Farm Bill, which decoupled food stamps for the first time and sought to cut them severely, was blocked by Dems.

Good. Let's do more of that. If we do it enough well win their votes and their support.

But the poor would never know that listening to you. Yet, ironically, you bitch about the OP's messaging.

The OPs message was that Republican poor are motivated by racism, and he based this conclusion on a comment made a half century ago. It probably was true then, and the people referred to likely still feel that way today -- assuming they are still alive to think about it at all. Today, the Republican poor get their world view from propagandists like Rush and Hannity, and if you doubt that they are saying what I wrote you need only tune in for an hour or so to hear it for yourself.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt on that but you sure know how to attack Democrats with some pretty good repug talking points.

And as far as Chained CPI (which I am opposed to) and SS, how can you possibly know that SS will be dead in 10 years if Chained CPI happens?

And sometimes it is just as simple as what LBJ said. The racism is there and the repugs still use the "Southern Strategy", just the dog whistle words have changed from forced busing and states rights to "Obamacare" and food stamp president, among many other slights.

And you can't ignore the whole birther/Kenyan/Obama depicted as a monkey or witch doctor on teaparty signs thing.

Hell, they don't even bother to camouflage that stuff.

This is the core of the GOP's social conservative base. These are the extremists who want Jesus in their schools, gays in prison, and blacks back in shackles or ghettos. And you are correct, they don't even bother to hide their bigotry and hate. I suspect that many of them are proud of it actually.

Quick response about Chained CPI...

What Chained CPI does is destroy the long term value of any benefits while leaving current recipients largely off the hook, or at least blind to the impact. The damage it causes is compounded, year after year. It's like a small water leak in a very big dam, it might look like just a trickle at first, but it is eroding the foundation.

So how does this trickle destroy the program?

For younger people, the ONLY selling feature of the program is the promise that it will be there for future recipients when they retire. But if you ask those younger people, most don't really believe that it will be there for them. Chained CPI ensures that the young people who feel this way are correct. The program might still exist in name only, but the benefits will be so eroded as to be useless. And this won't just be a talking point, it will be a reality. This opens the door to what the banks have wanted all along -- an easy sell at privitization.

When faced with a choice between a guaranteed nothing under chained CPI, and a chance at something under privitized social security, people are going to take that chance at something. It's not even a hard sell, it's common sense. Assuming chained CPI passes future recipients are guaranteed to get absolutely screwed. The money they have contributed all their working lives will be be worth a monthly bag of Ol' Roy dog food by the time they go to collect it. But if they privitize the program and invest the money, there is a chance, however slim, that the markets will be just right and they'll come out okay.

Oh, and you wanted a link to that infrastructure spending I mentioned. It was for a crucial Ohio River construction project. The provision authorizes $2.8 billion in funding for the Olmsted Locks and Dam on the Ohio River between Kentucky and Illinois. The entire commercial navigation system of the Ohio River faces a choke point near Olmsted, where two locks and dams with century-old technology are barely cobbled together and at risk of failure. What makes it even sweeter is that McConnell is catching hell for it from the right, because they think it is pork he slipped in (he didn't, and was Feinstein and Alexander). http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20131016/NEWS010605/310160151/Conservative-group-accuses-Mitch-McConnell-getting-2-8-billion-Kentucky-kickback-shutdown-legislation Looks like we'll not only get some much needed infrastructure out of this, but McConnell might lose to an idiot teabagger in his primary over it, making it MUCH more likely that Kentucky's next senator will be Democrat Alison Grimes (she's already running 2 points ahead of McConnell). Win-Win.

The President has constantly proposed infrastructure legislation, but other than the $787 Billion Stimulus package he got passed at the beginning of his Presidency when he had a filibuster proof majority for all of 24 working days, his proposals have been stopped by Republicans, except for a few that have slipped by like the Ohio River project. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/us/politics/obama-promotes-ambitious-plan-to-overhaul-nations-infrastructure.html?_r=0

Things are looking up, regardless. Dems just appointed Bernie Sanders to the committee that will work out a new budget to get away from the sequester terms. What no one is talking about (only Rachel pointed it out on her show on Oct. 16) is that the Dems ALSO got a whole list of funding items tacked onto the debt ceiling legislation:
1. Colorado flood recovery
2. Wildfire recovery
3. Wildfire prevention
4. Ohio River Construction project
5. Payment of $174K owed to former Senator Frank Lautenberg's widow
6. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
7. LI-HEAP (low income heating assistance)
Of course, the MSM described this as "pork." http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/17/politics/new-debt-deal-pork/

And you are dead wrong about the ACA. It has already saved lives with the expansion of Medicare and keeping kids on their parents policies to 26, and getting rid of the pre-existing condition exclusion.
http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/02/20/op-ed-you-me-affordable-care-act
http://www.thenation.com/article/167256/how-affordable-care-act-saves-lives#

Yes, the mandate part was a Heritage idea, but the expansion of Medicare and the ban of the pre-existing condition exclusion, the heart of the ACA, is all Dem. And it had to be paid for or it would never have passed, so that is why the mandate portion had to be in there.

I realize there is no way I am changing your mind no matter what I say or facts I present to you. It appears you have an agenda and a deep seated animosity for our President and the Democratic party, otherwise you would not be so blind to all the good they have done for our country. I am only responding because your post is remarkably similar to right wing talking points I see everywhere, and I am providing rebuttal points for the progressives on this board to discuss and add to.

I'm in a bit of pain now (though nowhere near what I was when I wrote that post) and I don't feel up to debating this stuff. And in any case, though it looks like that's how it came across, the point of my post was not to trash our party .

really good points.

I'd add that god and abortion play into it as does racism and fear of communism- crazy as that last point is. Also, no, democrats aren't every bit as much into austerity as Republicans are and democrats have been trying to raise taxes on the wealthy- something that most poor republicans actually oppose as shown in many polls.

One more thing and I don't mean to nitpick but bigoted is spelled as I've spelled it, not with a double "t". Oh, and we better damn well be talking about climate change. It's a huge threat.

We just have to keep pounding the message and hope more and more get it over time.

I do get your post, though.

Which is still very much in play. If you don't acknowledge the racism in the Republican party since 1976 - and the messaging behind it - you are leaving out a very important point.


They have indeed used black Americans - and added into it Hispanic/Latinos to show how, "them ones is taking stuff from you". Be it entrance to a University, a job, a promotion, the food off your table . . .

People can have different values.

Even though everybody wants the same things--decent job, decent food, decent family life--you wind up with people willing to abandon these "common sense" things for other values. People who go off to fight, people who go off to preach or heal in the boonies, people who decide that they'd rather be poor and write poetry than be a mechanical engineer.

There's research into the structure of value systems and even some that compares different sorts of political beasts' value system structures. Worth reading.

Meanwhile, a few psychologists are finding that ideas about what's fair in a deal and other traits that were considered universal and therefore hardwired are not universal. They're just common--either common cross-culturally or prevalent in the kinds of people psychologists study. We educated Westerners have so assumed everybody's "like us" when, in fact, many aren't--and depending on the issue at hand, possible the vast majority aren't--that it's sort of silly at times.

President Obama leaves Office?

I'm astounded by how many I've met who are single issue voters who vote conservative on those issues alone, and they're getting worse. more paranoid, as if they were under siege or whatever.

If someone is nuts, I just don't know how that breach can be brought together.

Since I replied to a member of my family (in-law) concerning one of these hilarious, religious, voices-in-my-dreams, racist chain letters, I have since been ostracized. These are some interesting times.

nt

That is it in a nut shell

i think it has more to do with old and very ingrained tribalism. a thousand generations of behavior.

I often think that's the basis for a lot of the crap we observe.

but in 2013 its a naturalistic fallacy.

we just aren't evolving fast enough.

survival of the fittest, but don't understand 'naturalistic fallacy.'

is that just because something is natural, doesn't mean it serves us any longer.

Our society is all about lies: lies about race, lies about religion, and lies about government.

Except for possibly some 1%ers, and even that isn't consistent. Bill Gates Senior was the prime sponsor of a bill in WA State to levy a 3% income tax on top earners. He didn't do this because it was in his personal interest; he did it because he didn't want to live in a world with as much inequality as there is now. IOW, he financed and supported a law that would have moved us in the direction of a world that he wanted to live in.

It isn't only high income people that have moral agency--most people of all income levels vote for the kind of world they want to live in. And why would lower income people want to live in a world where they keep getting kicked in the teeth? Because they basically love the idea of a world consisting of kickers and kickees, and if that ever changes they'll never get their chance to join the kickers.

to what the cons have been doing!

... I think that's most of it.

And having a black man take the office of President really messes that paradigm up big time. They just cannot wrap their heads around it, and for him to get RE elected, well what an outrage.

It's not just the peons that have this attitude - a certain party's house of congress is infested with folks who believe like this.

Obama has bent over backward trying to work with these people. I think he genuinely does not understand virulent racism. I think he is catching on, I certainly hope so.

who said something disparaging about Obama's 'illegitimate and unpopular' presidency, I asked him how did he think Mr. Obama got reelected by a vote margin in the millions. He said "lots of nonexistent, dead, black or brown people!"

My boss is an avowed racist and homophobe, and I am sure I'll be working somewhere else this time next year.

in front of a small group of my peers, I bet you are happy today. I replied, the majority of America is happy today and all he could do was frown.

I sure hope so, good luck

It's icky.

http://chicksontheright.com/posts/item/24534-obama-thinks-income-inequality-is-morally-wrong-even-though-he-s-made-it-worse

Sometimes I just hate America, parts of it, damn.

life is hard enough, don't need more icky.

It wasn't that bad, just a young conservative womens' group blaming Obama for what Congress has done and failed to do to address income inequality.

And doing with fashionably well!

"Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor."

Racism is only one factor among many.

Many of those folks are not convinced that they are voting against their own economic interests. They are convinced that the place where they work could be forced out of business by excessive taxation and regulation and their jobs will be gone.

Many, including many women, are profoundly convinced that abortion is murder.

Many are convinced, with gun reason, that Democrats are anti-gun.

When you see racism as the only issue, or even as the primary issue, you blind yourself to the many issues that are in play.

Taxes represent the government controlling them by taking away their money.

Benefits are viewed as always having some strings attached or some bureaucratic processes to be complied with.

These are the kind of people who will take a circuitous route through town to avoid stop lights.

I read his books and we emailed each other when he was alive. Good man...He understands because he is from the same neck of the woods many teabaggers come from.

http://www.joebageant.com/