I met Strom Thurmond in the lobby of a hotel/dorm at Clemson in 1994. A few of us were there, and the old guy came off the elevator and walked up to us and shook all of our hands. Two of the girls with us fawned all over him, saying how great he was. Me, I had no idea it was Strom Thurmond.
Sure, the Republican party abolished slavery, as Maker's Mark points out. But people like Strom Thurmond actually left the Democratic party in the 1960s because of states' rights. And what did the states have the right to do? Segregation. Talk to some people, and they still think states have the right to do whatever they want. Or even communities. There is no such thing as "tyranny of the majority," they say. Instead, there is only the will of the people.
I couldn't believe it that people kept voting for Strom Thurmond. Even people of other races voted for him. Sure, he eventually changed his views on race, but he never renounced his stance on segregation because that was a states' rights issue, and states should have the right still. People said that he was one of the most powerful senators in the country and so we should keep him in office to do good for our state.
Past voting records matter, though. I can accept when someone actually changes his or her mind based on new information, but there are some issues I can't accept, period. The Thurmonater was guilty of one of those.
My fear of some Republican and Libertarian ideas is that they still hold some of those notions of states' rights. I think the notion of the "free market" may stem from the same ideology.
3 comments:
With 'states rights' sometime the other foot needs to drop. Sometimes states pass very liberal legislation that conflicts with national, constitional policy and law.
If you think that states shouldn't be allowed to segregate based on race do you also think that states shouldn't be allowed to have medical marijuana lee-way, allow for doctor-assisted suicide, or eliminate parental abortion notification??? These policies are not embraced by a majority of the overall America public and also fly in the face of national, constitutional law just like racial segregation??
Your double and triple question marks worry me.
Nothing should be allowed that contradicts national or constituional law. Nothing. It is debatable whether certain policies actually do contradict national or constitutional law, however. Segregation, yes, but parental abortion notification? Maybe not.
I actually have no idea about that last one. Just thought it sounded questionable.
I just want to post this for Chad, Jenny and Mark from the Ohio debate:
The claim: Obama quoted Clinton as saying, "You can't just wave a magic wand and expect special interests to go away." Criticizing Clinton's fundraising, Obama continued: "That is absolutely true, but it doesn't help if you're taking millions of dollars of contributions from those special interests. They are less likely to go away."
The facts: Clinton has received more than $1 million from political action committees, the groups representing employees of businesses and ideological groups. Obama does not accept PAC contributions or donations from federally registered lobbyists, though he does accept contributions from business partners of lobbyists and from employees of the interests they represent. Both got more than $400,000 from employees of Wall Street brokerage firm Goldman Sachs, for example, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Three of Clinton's top five sources of campaign money and four of Obama's top five are Wall Street banks or brokerages, the center says.
My Comment: doesn't make Obama seem very different from you standard dem politician despite the hype.
AF
Hillary Supporter
Post a Comment