Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=rfp;25176761
If I were working class and living in Baltimore (white or black), you could be dam sure I would vote a straight Democratic ticket. [/QUOTE]
Bet you would since the last Republican mayor was McKeldin (second term 1963-67) and no Republican has been elected to the City Council since 1939.
McKeldin was a moderate Republican, which is now somewhat a historical curiosity, influential in getting the Republican presidential nomination for Eisenhower in 1952. If I remember correctly, he was a great supporter of civil rights for Blacks, and a darn good Mayor and Governor. Present-day Baltimore could do a lot worse than elect a reincarnation of Theodore R. McKeldin.
I hope someone finally writes a bio of McKeldin. There was one in the works, but I don't know what happened to that.
Anyway, after rousingly nominating Eisenhower, McKeldin rejected the 1964 GOP candidate, Barry M. Goldwater, and instead endorsed Lyndon B. Johnson's re-election. LBJ helicoptered to Baltimore to thank McKeldin and tried to make him the first mayor of the District of Columbia. McK turned the offer down.
So. . . isn't it interesting that while other mayors have statues honoring him, there is nothing for McKeldin, the man who more than Schaefer is responsible for today's Inner Harbor. Neither the Maryland GOP nor the national outfit wants anything to do with a man they regard as a crypto-Democrat. (There is quite a bit about McK in Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City).
Status:
"48 years in MD, 18 in NC"
(set 13 days ago)
Location: Greenville, NC
2,309 posts, read 6,103,880 times
Reputation: 1430
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfp
Unfortunately, working class Appalachian and Southern whites are not as smart in voting their religious beliefs and homophobic fears. They always vote against their own best economic interests, for which I give the Republican propaganda machine and its super PAC's credit.
They do this because they don't want government handouts. They would rather work hard for what little they have, and are proud to tell you this. They are not dependent on government entitlements and don't want any. I see nothing wrong with this. They know their place in society and are satisfied.
You would be truly surprised at how many poor white people there are. They live just beyond the borders of suburbia in many cases. But they are very proud to be Americans and very proud not to take handouts. I see and talk to them on almost a daily basis. In the last presidential election, they did vote for Hope And Change. The county I live in always votes Republican in the presidential elections. Not this last time. This county went to Obama. Having seen the poor results of that promise, I wouldn't count on the poor white vote again if I were Barry.
They do this because they don't want government handouts. They would rather work hard for what little they have, and are proud to tell you this. They are not dependent on government entitlements and don't want any. I see nothing wrong with this. They know their place in society and are satisfied.
You would be truly surprised at how many poor white people there are. They live just beyond the borders of suburbia in many cases. But they are very proud to be Americans and very proud not to take handouts. I see and talk to them on almost a daily basis. In the last presidential election, they did vote for Hope And Change. The county I live in always votes Republican in the presidential elections. Not this last time. This county went to Obama. Having seen the poor results of that promise, I wouldn't count on the poor white vote again if I were Barry.
If only they were as shameless as the rich for corporate welfare.
No, they're just rubes.
Lee Atwater, Reagan's adviser:
(Forum censored from dropping n-bombs)
Quote:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******.
EDIT:
Heck, look at this forum filled with reactionary old people that fall for this now with magical thinking involving paranoid racist conspiracy theories.
"We" working class Appalachian folks often vote against "our own interests" because of having an actual political philosophy that extends further than "What's in it for me?" If everyone voted for what advanced their own interests the most, the common good would be destroyed.
There are truths, issues, realities that transcend the "what's in it for me" mentality.
"We" working class Appalachian folks often vote against "our own interests" because of having an actual political philosophy that extends further than "What's in it for me?" If everyone voted for what advanced their own interests the most, the common good would be destroyed.
There are truths, issues, realities that transcend the "what's in it for me" mentality.
Not really, you've just bought into reactionary propaganda that's resulted in an destabilizingly huge concentration of wealth into a global elite who have no national loyalties or qualms about embezzling the labor of this country in casinos on wal-street and k-street.
Its not like your values involve not purchasing the products of slave labor, so it's kind of silly to pretend its some kind of moral upper hand to aggressively support cutting social safety nets to stick it to "the other".
I hope someone finally writes a bio of McKeldin. There was one in the works, but I don't know what happened to that.
Anyway, after rousingly nominating Eisenhower, McKeldin rejected the 1964 GOP candidate, Barry M. Goldwater, and instead endorsed Lyndon B. Johnson's re-election. LBJ helicoptered to Baltimore to thank McKeldin and tried to make him the first mayor of the District of Columbia. McK turned the offer down.
So. . . isn't it interesting that while other mayors have statues honoring him, there is nothing for McKeldin, the man who more than Schaefer is responsible for today's Inner Harbor. Neither the Maryland GOP nor the national outfit wants anything to do with a man they regard as a crypto-Democrat. (There is quite a bit about McK in Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City).
This is unfortunate; I hope that McKeldin eventually gets the recognition that he deserves.
I remember him fairly well, or at least I think that I do -- he was a little odd by modern standards, in that he could be an old-fashioned orator rather than a modern public speaker. Perhaps some old footage of his speech is available on youtube or wherever.
To understand him properly, I believe that it may be helpful to remember that in those days there were significant numbers of moderate and even liberal Republicans. Many of them shunned Barry Goldwater, thinking that he was an ideologically driven crackpot. Dwight Eisenhower is quoted somewhere as saying that the main problem with Goldwater was that he was "just plain dumb" or something to that effect. So I would not necessarily call McK a crypto-Democrat simply because he rejected Goldwater, although I understand your point that today's Republicans may indeed think that he was. This may say more about today's Republicans than it does about McKeldin.
Edit -- I love it! See the "Longines Chronoscope with Theodore R. McKeldin" interview on Youtube, filmed circa 1952, for a first-hand view of the man's mannerisms and speech. Ah, the good old days . . .
Last edited by Hamish Forbes; 07-16-2012 at 11:11 AM..
Not really, you've just bought into reactionary propaganda that's resulted in an destabilizingly huge concentration of wealth into a global elite who have no national loyalties or qualms about embezzling the labor of this country in casinos on wal-street and k-street.
Its not like your values involve not purchasing the products of slave labor, so it's kind of silly to pretend its some kind of moral upper hand to aggressively support cutting social safety nets to stick it to "the other".
I don't care if other people get rich. More power to those that can help themselves. I would rather see the competent succeed then dump money to those that never will succeed at anything except drawing a check from those that work for a living.
It seems you do care that others are rich (class envy, perhaps) and seem to think those people are the ruination of the country.
That's fine. Just be sure to give back your hundreds of channels of digital cable, cell phones, I-pads, I-pods, PCs, and all the other creature comforts those nasty rich people and their evil corporations innovated and brought to the market at price even those on the dole can afford.
As for "slave labor?" Ask the Chinese worker at Apple if their life if better getting paid to work and live in the city, and having money to send back to their family in the country side, or spending life with mud up to your knees growing rice to prevent starvation? Fair wage is a relative term. Again, many people are happy to have jobs, food on the table, a place to live, and less concerned with how rich people spend their money and live their lives. That Green-Eyed monster's got you, newbie; envy will eat you up inside if you let it.
Last edited by westsideboy; 07-16-2012 at 02:29 PM..
I don't care if other people get rich. More power to those that can help themselves. I would rather see the competent succeed then dump money to those that never will succeed at anything except drawing a check from those that work for a living.
It seems you do care that others are rich (class envy, perhaps) and seem to think those people are the ruination of the country.
That's fine. Just be sure to give back your hundreds of channels of digital cable, cell phones, I-pads, I-pods, PCs, and all the other creature comforts those nasty rich people and their evil corporations innovated and brought to the market at price even those on the dole can afford.
As for "slave labor?" Ask the Chinese worker at Apple if their life if better getting paid to work and live in the city, and having money to send back to their family in the country side, or spending life with mud up to your knees growing rice to prevent starvation? Fair wage is a relative term. Again, many people are happy to have jobs, food on the table, a place to live, and less concerned with how rich people spend their money and live their lives. That Green-Eyed monster's got you, newbie; envy will eat you up inside if you let it.
I don't mind those companies developing products, its just an issue when they control all means of production.
I don't care about other people having money, I care what destablizing imbalances of wealth do.
People are working harder and getting less from it so an a miniscule elite can invest it in casinos to embezzle the value of labor. This leads to breakdowns in infrastructure and decreased quality of life for everyone regardless of how hard they work or how competent they are when all the money is controlled by a small elite group.
I was thinking more of American prison slave labor rather than 3rd world sweatshops (which, do actually destroy their local markets rather than helping).
Honestly, we have the same goals but you've been swindled by a bunch of hucksters who don't care what their accumulation and methods do to the rest of society.
EDIT:
Jeez man, you're an example of this in action
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsideboy
I don't care if other people get rich. More power to those that can help themselves. I would rather see the competent succeed then dump money to those that never will succeed at anything except drawing a check from those that work for a living.
Quote:
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******.
Last edited by IdisagreewithEdwardA; 07-16-2012 at 02:50 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More on McKeldin
) and seem to think those people are the ruination of the country. 
