Susan Sarandon on CSpan nailed it, the Dems need to understand

[NVMojo]

the difference in beliefs between rurals and urbans ...I couldn't agree more and that was so evident in the Dem campaign effort in Nevada this past year.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. What you need to know about Republican suburbanites.

They have a gated community mentality. They have blocked out the world, so it no longer plays a role in their daily lives. It they can't see it, it doesn't exist.

[tx_dem41]

2. Succinct and spot on, Backlash. n/t

[KittyWampus]

3. Also, The Subset Known As Homeschoolers. Lots Of Very Insular Families

with no working model for dealing with the Real World.

The Real World being where there are gays, blacks, secularists etc.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. You don't know the half of it with those homeschoolers.

They have a mindset that the public school is full of evil, lustful kids. I read an article in a newspaper about a homeschooler who was allowed to play on a sports team in a public school. They went overboard saying that she was the nicest one on the team and how she was cleaning up everybody else's language. And, unfortunately, they took out of context a remark made by one of the other players which was meant to be said jokingly, about how they tried to corrupt her, but couldn't. It was a very badly written article that made the rest of the team sound like sluts. I can't imagine there was much camaraderie after that article was printed.

[hector459]

18. Little zombies. Remember, Andrea Yates was a homeschooler.

We know what happens with insular families in most cases. Anti-social.
But on balance, they can't be worse than some of those disruptive public school kids and those drugging private schoolers.

[lynne]

74. Homeschooling doesn't reflect politics -

- of the three families I know that homeschool, all three are Democrats and one is very politically active. Homeschooling isn't defined by politics.
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/articles/080904.htm

[DemDogs]

80. My family not homeschooled but Andrea Yates mention hardly fair

That woman was seriously unbalanced. Apparently she wasn't always anti-social.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

102. Little Zombies?

if you were to meet my three children you would quickly change your opinion.

Your comment is among the least informed things I've ever seen written about homeschooled children.

How incredibly rude!

Thank goodness my children weren't raised in the type of insular, removed, narrow-minded environment that produced someone capable of such a statement.

Thank goodness they were homeschooled.

[Tigress DEM]

120. The plight of Andrea and lots of homeschoolers is their church...

Forces the issue. They have to have as many children as they can, be a stay at home mom, always be subserviant or .... they are told they aren't good Christians.

Now I don't think this is reflective of all homeschoolers and I don't think it's reflective of all churches, but in Andrea's case her calls for help went unheeded and she cracked.

Being a mom is hard enough. Doing it without any outside support - and a church that only tells you to be stronger, do more isn't what I call support - that is just more than a lot of people can handle.

[demwing]

101. You read an article?

Wow, you must know everything there is to know about these homeschoolers.

My YEARS of experience in the area must be irrelevant.

All those years I homeschooled my children were wasted...despite the obvious reality, I must believe that our homeschooling efforts have NOT produced well-rounded, friendly, talented, bright, independently minded children.

I guess I should read about stuff in the news, then I'll know it all.

What was I thinking?

Talk about insular...

[The Backlash Cometh]

112. Insular: like an island; detached; isolated.

Half of my schooling occurred in private schools (six years Catholic school; and four years in an elite private college) and I found them incredibly insular. They were small groups full of elite people. The only place I attended which taught me not to be afraid of everyone who looked different than I do, occurred during the years I spent in public school.

Now, if half of my schooling occurred in private schools and I found them incredibly insular, how do you think I'll respond to an overly-righteous mother who feels a need to justify her choice of homeschooling her children, by knocking down other people's choices? I'm not referring to you, I'm referring to the mother in the article. You see, I know her. I also know the children on the team who felt very degraded by that article. Everybody seems to think that it's okay to knock down public schools, well, I say do it at your own risk because this mom isn't going to take it anymore without a backlash.

[demwing]

119. OK, so you have a problem with that individual

but your post took a shot at all home-schoolers.

I have nothing against the public schools, nothing against you, and nothing against your children.

But I'm a home-schooler, and when you take a shot at home-schoolers, you take a shot at my kids.

Don't make the mistake of becoming like those who you condemn.

peace :)

[The Backlash Cometh]

122. I just hope that you realize that you need to make up for the social

isolation that your homeschooling decision will inflict on your kids. I don't doubt that they can make the grade, but do they really understand that "diversity" is not a communist plot, but a divine reality? That's a rhetorical question because I'm finished with this thread.

[demwing]

125. Yes

The real world answer to your rhetorical question is YES.

They have NEVER been isolated, not from other children, not from life, and not from opposing view points. They understand diversity because they have LIVED it.

My oldest son is of mixed race, is the son of the only family in town with a Kerry for President sign in our yard, is the only non-Mormon kid on the block, and thinks better of you than you do of him. Of that I have no doubt.

Try to raise kids in Utah when you're not LDS and not Republican, then get back to me on diversity. I might be able to teach you a few things.

You know NOTHING about home-schooled children, other than the stereotype that you've bought. That's too bad.

[demwing]

99. You speak without knowing

as do most people who try to cast a negative light on homeschooling.

Or perhaps I'm wrong.

Why don't you tell us all about your personal experiences with home-education, or your academic study of the subject.

[burythehatchet]

103. thou doth protest too much

[demwing]

106. I homeschool my children

and, IMO, I don't protest these types of inane accusations often--or thoroughly--enough.

Now, will YOU tell us all about YOUR expertise in home-education?

Someone must have some academic, or personal experience.

[burythehatchet]

108. see post 103

:)

[demwing]

113. You do know what they say abouty people who quote themsleves, right?

then again, perhaps you don't...

[burythehatchet]

114. Based on our brief exchange, I would expect that your children are

near perfect. Congratulations on your acomplishments. Did you home-school them?

on edit, there is a slight difference between a quote and a reference. :)

[demwing]

118. Ha! My children are hardly perfect.

They are just normal, well developed children. They excell in certain areas, and they need help in other areas. They don't fit into neat little packages.

I home schooled my 15 year old all the way up until high-school, and have my 10 year old on a half day of public school/half day home school.

As far as the 15 year old is concerned, his mom and I agreed that he would benefit from the structure and academics of high school, and was mature enough to easily handle the downside of being the stand-alone progressive in a sea of conservative Mormons.

Does home-schooling hold your kid back? Not in our case. My son is as social as any public-schooler. He has no trouble meeting people or making friends, is on the telephone or email all the time, and carries a 3.8 GPA.

He's not perfect. He's just perfectly normal, and doesn't deserve to be called a zombie. People who insult home-schoolers have insulted my kids.

Talk shit about me, I don't care much, but leave my kids alone.

[NVMojo]

39. ah, but what needs to be understood is how the Rove machine ..

makes the poor rurals feel like they can be part of that same team. Watch "Silver City", it moves slowly but the Dreyfus character nails it on the nose.

[NorthSideCubsFan]

158. Republicans who have "blocked out the world"...

are idiots.

I saw a lot of threads here right after the election from DU'ers who vowed to block out the world too - "I'll never speak to any of my conservative or centrist friends/family again"

They were idiots too.

[Perky]

166. That is an incredibly inane response.

Youn need to get out of the city more.

It is is not nearly as gated as you think. There is however a values adjustment which occure in the suburbs, It is a "chase the American Dream" mentality. Its about protecting the kids and financial security. Its about aspiration to greater comfort and ease of life. It's about the working out of the Protestant work ethic.

Its a view that government stands in the way of the accumulation of wealth. Not Affluence but enough to have piece of mind and comfort.

Dems get painted as being against the rich and we have no response that appeals to those who aspire to affluence.

[MeDeMax]

4. hmm a link if you have one ?

can't seem to find one on www.cspan.org

thnx,

[EFerrari]

27. Sarandon said that on Bill Maher's show sometime in late Nov. n/t

[NVMojo]

40. they had her on cspan tonight, some artists thing

[zmdem]

5. The Democrats need to get serious

and not rely on Hollywood actors/actresses to be their spokesmen. It's a bit embarassing.

[BlueInRed]

7. like Arnold S and Ronald Reagan :)

just kidding... a little bit. :P The Republicans have no problems with Hollywood entertainers as long as they're Republicans. I think anyone on our side is welcome, including actors, actresses and musicians.

[zmdem]

13. Ya got a point, but there is a bit of a difference

Arnie is the Gov. of CA, and Reagan was that and the POTUS.

Sarandon is just an over the hill actress.

[G_j]

16. & Lenny Bruce was just a comedian

Woody Guthrie just a musician,

I guess you have to be a lawyer turned stuffed shirt politician to be taken seriously?

[zmdem]

25. OK, I give,

Sarandon merits the same consideration that one might give Geo. Washington, Warren Magnuson, even Barbara Boxer ? Give me a break.

As to Woody Guthrie, I consider his political views every bit as important as FDRs thoughts on music.

[NVMojo]

41. I like anyone who has the guts to say a spade is a spade in *world

...and the freepers hate Sarandon and Tim Robbins cuz they speak out. Too bad you don't see the advantage. Have you ever spoken out about *world at risk to your career?

posting on an anonymous bulletin board of people who think like you doesn't count.

[zmdem]

67. Sarandon and Robbins have every right

to speak. I just don't think they help the Democratic party when they do. Their views are naive and make Democrats look foolish.

[jdots]

70. yada yada

[Bridget Burke]

76. Yes, but flying the Confederate Battle Flag in your messages...

Makes you look a bit foolish.

[zmdem]

117. It might, if it were the case

however it is not. Suggest you do a bit of research on flags, then get back to me with an apology.

Also, if you have a problem with my avatar, you might wish to complain to the DU admins, as I selected it from amomgst those they offer.

[MelissaB]

83. She had a hellava lot to say

that made sense, and it was the kind of things we read here at DU everyday.

Controlled media
Lies about the war
and many more...

[NVMojo]

111. I liked when she said it takes everything to keep her kids from watching

TV ....she tries to limit their exposure to mainstream rants, it seems.

[flyarm]

86. what you may not understand is..

sarandon and robbins live in the world of the corp neo cons..its their employers, their neighbors, their neighborhood..perhaps it is many others that are naive..they are not naive to what is planned for your or this nation..they are exposed to these neo cons daily..not the little guy who votes for them..but the actual neo cons who are running the show...by the time you are effected by these neo cons on an everyday basis..it will already be too late for you...susan and tim know that..they take great risks and costs to speak out for those not in the know...its a shame but the old saying still is significant..you can take a horse to water, but you can't make them drink....yet so many are willing to drink the kool aide from this * cabal without asking even simple questions, or cross checking what they are told...with facts ..real facts..
to say susan and tim are naive is wrong..dead wrong..they know more than you will ever know whats really going on behind the scenes...and they have tried to protect the innocent..too bad the innocent cares so little for themselves or their nation ..and are gullible enough to drink the ignorant kool aide!
i know i live in that world so to speak..and if you think the rich care one rats ass about the middle class..i have a bridge to sell you ..along with swamp land...very few are willing to stand up for the middle class , and they live on freebies, and are on the take...and if you are so willing to give it away with no fight..well then you deserve what you get...
i know tim and susan have risked everything for the middle class american by speaking out in a world that doesn't want you to know how they are screwing you...its about time americans wake up and grow up and get responsible for the utter ignorance they are so willing to accept.

i know because my husband has taken many risks by me speaking out to try to wake up americans to the screwing you are getting..we take the risk of loosing everything...but its that important to us..our nation is that important to us..too many are willing to sell their soul for the god almighty dollar..we see it everyday on our t.v.'s with the so called lying media pundits..they have sold you out...

and yet so many simple americans are willing to slam those who have risked all to protect you and their country..their nation..and to tell you the truth..i am getting sick of it..i am sick of the ignroance i see daily by people who make statements with no facts behind what they say ..other than one sold out media type who lied to them telling them so!!

i shake my head daily asking myself..when did my fellow countryman become so damn gullible and so damn dumb!!

dont cry to susan and tim when your air isnt breathable, when there is no middle class, when your social security is a mere pittance and it was robbed by wall street, and your standard of living is equal or worse than a third world country...they risked it all to warn you!!

[Skidmore]

69. So how much credence should we all

lend your opinions?

The people are fellow citizens and have the right to an opiniona and, until the facists finish their takeover, the right to express it. It's called freedom of speech.

[Tigress DEM]

134. Putting a person's opinion down simply because they are in show biz..

is like saying that someone who is a line cook doesn't have enough sense to cast their vote correctly.

I'm not Ted Kennedy either. So why should my opinion count? Because it's America and it's my right to speak my mind.

Susan should simply be entitled to her opinion and because of her visibility she helps others to speak up too.

I'm really encouraged that someone who could remain above it all and just hide behind her money is willing to open her mouth and insert foot.

I hope EVERYONE wakes up and helps us get rid of the repub infestation that is causing us all to be so cranky and argumentative with each other.

Hang in there Zmdem, know you have a good heart.

[Duncan Grant]

21. At least I know Sarandon is who she says she is! n/t

:kick:

[EFerrari]

29. Sarandon has more talent in her toenail clippings than either of

them. Austria wants to disown Ahnold and Reagan cooperated with the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. Please.

[fujiyama]

46. I agree that Sarandon

is a talented actress.

But she simply doesn't command the star power Arnold does. I'm not saying he's a terrific actor. In fact he's terrible.

But he commands attention EVERYONE knows who Arnold is. People would have seen Sarandon on some movie or the other, but she doesn't have the same name recognition.

I don't know much about Reagan (atleast in terms of his pre presidential years) so I can't comment, but Reagan and Arnold, still had some understanding of talking to people in extremely simple langugage. It's almost cavemanish (Arnold had a few memorable movie lines and repeated them throughout the campaign).

[EFerrari]

57. We sure like our shiney things, don't we? : )

[jdots]

71. I am now going to stick up for 2 actor/non celebs

Both Sarandon and Robbins have trashed thier careers because they give a shit about the world,Ronny and Arnold were never actors,they were hacks and fronts for the neocon bullshit.
History lesson= (boring but true) Reagan after his " Bedtime for Bonzo" movies went on to do a little turn around from Democrat to Republican at the beginning of the Hollywood black listing then did a brilliant show for General Electric (maker of not just light bulbs ). He was being coached as the ex jock strong and silent type ,man of few words and little knowledge into Republican politics as the " Great Communicator " user of repub double speak and some of the first think tank deception framing.He came in during the Me Generation years to replace a very liberal Jerry Brown and set the neocon prop 13 less taxes for the rich scam into motion.Public schools went into the toilet as well as most social programs. As for the Gropenator, it's all there.....brought to America by Joe Wider Co. ( check into what that is all about ) the rest is history and it ain't pretty.All this stuff is not a conspiracy,it is just well thought out and planned.
I get mad when people trash actors,musicans,artists or anyone that walks away from a career because us non celebs mean more to them than money and power as the hacks sell out and become neocon gods.I don't like some of the work that these celebrity liberals have done in the arts,but they care for the world.Some of them are has beens but it is better than a never was that gets coached and paid to trash the world for greed.

[HootieMcBoob]

75. not before they were elected to those positions

before Ahnold became gov. of CA he was a bad actor who used to rub oil all over his skin and prance around in front of a bunch of other guys wearing a bikini. Reagan was a b movie actor who's greatest accomplishment was staring in "Bedtime For Bonzo" and the chimp stole the show!

The right-wingers have more than their share of partisans speaking up for their side. The only difference is that that's just fine with them.

Do not ever allow yourself to be taken in by their game! Rule number one. Do not ever paint your own team using the other team's criticisms! That's exactly what they want you to do. You are helping them to reach their goal.

The only reason Republicans criticize the entertainment industry is because they contribute overwhelmingly to Democrats. That is the only reason - period. It's the same reason they criticize trial lawyers - period. Keep that in mind and you will understand a lot about the way they work. If the contributions shifted from Democrats to Republicans you wouldn't hear another peep out of them about Hollywood liberals.

Don't allow yourself to be sucked into their game.

[googly]

84. You just proved that it is NOT acting prowess that makes a good

politician. What makes a good politician is speaking in
simple language that the proletariat can understand. That
is where Reagan excelled. He had this soothing, always
optimistic delivery of his message which the masses lapped
up. Arnold is showing the same traits.

Susan Sarandon sounds angry, high pitched and overly complicated.
She has a long way to become a politician.

[Misunderestimator]

97. Why do you hate Susan Sarandon?

You think that Reagan and Arnold were wonderful representatives :eyes: but Sarandon is high pitched, angry and complicated. That's just weird. She's an intelligent woman with a tremendous amount of compassion for others... she doesn't have to put herself out on a limb, but she does.

Bush has pretty much cornered the market on speaking to the "proletariat"... I for one appreciate intelligent people speaking up to counter that slop.

[googly]

105. I love Susan Sarandon, I just don't think she can be a politician

She sounds very intense, very emotional whenever I
have seen her talking politics. That does not go
well as Reagan proved in actual votes. He was neither
very intelligent nor very articulate.

I never said she was not intelligent. I was giving my
impressions of why certain people make popular politicians.
If you read "hate" into that then you are seeing things
which do not exist. I believe in psychiatry it is known as
being paranoid.

[Misunderestimator]

109. She's not trying to be a politician. She is representing herself as a

private citizen. LOL at you analyzing me.

[googly]

115. Fair enough...but anyone who speaks out on issues affecting

public policy and has access to media is practising politics.
I don't believe one has to be in an elected office to be
classified as a politician. People in right-wing radio are,
in my definition, practising politics.

[Misunderestimator]

116. If I had access to the media like she does, I would utilize it for good

as well. I just can't bring myself to criticize someone for trying to do the right thing. And... in my opinion, she is a wonderful spokesperson, so I REALLY can't bring myself to insult her.

[Misunderestimator]

88. "Over the hill actress?"

Explain yourself.

[jackster]

150. Sarandon's IQ is probably greater

than the combination of the Gropenator's and Raygun's added together.....

no one should be denigrated or not allowed a voice because of their profession or worth

[davidwparker]

8. Just exercising her freedom of speech

[Cha]

11. Right! They have as much right

to speak out as we do.

No one is relying on them for anything.

[cidliz2004]

12. Don't bite off your nose to spite your face!

We don't have fair coverage on the media now! At least Actors get media attention and give voice to our Party and it's platforms. Let them talk all that they CAN on T.V. and whereever else is possible.

[zmdem]

14. I have no problem with it

it just makes the Democratic party seem light weight and not serious.

[cidliz2004]

19. What about Reagan and Schwartzenager?

They were once lightweight to....and look where that got them.

[zmdem]

22. As I posted above, there is a difference

Arnie is the Gov. of CA, Reagan was that and also the POTUS.

Sarandon is just an over the hill actress.

[cidliz2004]

136. Reagan was an "over the hill" actor

Susan Sarandan is a good actress, I really enjoy watching her. You must be pretty young to call her "over the hill"

[tkmorris]

24. No, it doesn't

What was Reagan before he became Governor of California? An actor with opinions. Ditto for Arnie. There is exactly ZERO difference between them and celebrities who sometimes speak out about Dem issues.

Celebrities of all types command attention. Perhaps the sheer amount of attention they get seems silly, it does to me, but the fact remains that they do. When one of them uses that limelight to speak about something more serious than their favorite skin cream I admire that. It isn't silly at all, indeed it shows a depth of character that few celebrities posess.

As a matter of fact, you and I both come here to offer up our incredibly wise opinions on political topics of all kinds. No one points at us and asks what business we have discussing things that aren't our business. The difference between Susan Sarandon and me is that when she speaks about something people pay attention. I am happy that they do, but I know Republicans aren't. It would seem that you aren't either. I would humbly suggest that the more people who can command attention who use that to say something actually IMPORTANT than the better off we will all be.

[bobbieinok]

127. Reagan on show sponsored by 20 mule team boraxo Death Valley

Days.....he was the slow talking cowboy company spokesman who introduced the shows

latter he was a spokesman for GE

corporations picked him to be front man in CA and US

[NVMojo]

43. then what are YOU going to do to make it all better?

There was someone in the audience who brought up a statement made by some Repuke who said the only way the Dems are going to take back the administration of this country is to get someone with star power, like JFKennedy had, like Clinton had, like Reagan had, and then like Bush was groomed to allegedly have ...no kidding, this was said.

Sarandon agreed that is probably true but not her place. She said that when people understand what is going on and do nothing but complain or judge as some of the postings on this thread, they won't make a difference. She said when someone has the clout or power to bring forth an issue, they need to do it and that is why she and Tim R. do what they do. They don't take their positions in life for granted.

[proudbluestater]

44. I don't think it's a BIT embarrrasing! It sure beats some fundie preachers

[Clark2008]

51. Why? The Republicans have Arnie.

And, yes, I'm watching you, closely.

[Laurab]

89. I think you should watch - I am too

I'm still trying to figure out if ZMDEM means zell miller, and the flag is interesting, as well.

Anyone who is in a position to be heard, and who speaks out, is exercising the right of free speech. Many, many celebrities have risked damage to their careers by speaking out, because they cared about what was happening to their country. It is their right, and I admire each and every one of them for trying to save our democracy.

I'm trying to think of the celebrities who speak out FOR * and co - you know, like Kid Rock, that paragon of virtue, and a few country singers. No one seems to complain when they exercise their right to free speech - well, until the Christian Right was told about Kid Rock's lyrics, anyway. Any celebrity they can grab, they do, it's just that there are so few who back this regime.

I say it's a true patriot who speaks out, knowing it could be damaging to their career, and were I in a position in which my voice was heard by a lot of people, I would hope I would have the courage to do it.

[Kipepeo]

62. But that is who the conservative mainstream media calls

They will put a Republican pundit whose job it is to promote repub-propaganda on with a liberal celebrity whose job it is to entertain but who happens to care about the state of the country.

The liberal celebs go on because they want to *do* something and because the mainstream conservative media is calling them instead of liberal pundits. It points out the medias collusion with the right wing.

[Tigress DEM]

132. Disagree Zmdem. EVERYONE needs to speak out... the rocks should be crying

about now. Hell, I applauded the Dixie Chicks and all the people who Rocked the Vote.

This perception that we DEMS or Progressives are elitest snobs is part of why rural people think we don't have time for them.

I've seen a lot of your posts and I know you're mainly an open minded person, so I'm just wondering if you have thought about it this way.

Not trying to tweak you too hard, but I really feel that there has to be a new spirit of cooperation in the Democratic party and anyone who is speaking out against controlled media and lies in this administration should just keep flapping their jaw until the people finally get it that it's the truth and start being mad at the people who really deserve it, the repub neo-cons and the bushits.

[BlueInRed]

6. I agree too

I saw a lot of this when I lived in Nashville. I had a friend who had moved there from San Francisco and she's a big city kid and just couldn't relate to the issues that were important to rural people in TN. The lifestyles are just so different and the things that affect their quality of life are so different, it's almost like talking two entirely different languages. Whatever direction we go in the future, we have to remember that duality.

I think that is why getting back to grassroots will help. People in each state know the particular "buzz issues" that will either pull people to us or send them scurrying away. Putting power back in the states will help us focus our campaigns to the particular demographics.

[Disturbed]

9. How beneficial are the Rethugs...

for people in rural areas?

[BlueInRed]

17. boy this may be long, and it's just my opinion

I think the Republicans have made a systematic effort to go after things the people in rural areas care about and also made sure to be "one of them" and not "talk down to them." Democrats don't always realize how important that is to not come off as thinking they know better than the people in small towns.

Imagine if you live in small town, have a small town business, work a farm, or even work at Walmart. You probably know nearly everyone in town. Your nearest neighbor may live a hundred feet away or a quarter of a mile. If someone hits a hard time, a lot of people pull together, bring over pot luck, give them odd jobs, etc. Small town people tend to take care of each other more than in a big city. So, they don't always see the need for the safety net type programs that help so many in larger cities, because in their world, someone will pitch in and help out. If they hear a bump in the night, if they just call 911, it probably will be too late. They want that gun in the closet to protect themselves. A lot of the older folks may not have gone to college and may be suspicious of "fancy city folk" coming to tell them what would be best for them. In other words, it's a whole group of things that separates the rural people from the city dwellers. And the Republicans play to each of these things. It's almost like it's about "identity" rather than any one issue.

I went to college in a mid-size town and was really surprised at the difference in people. Frankly, they were all a whole lot nicer to each other than the people were in the city I grew up in. I noticed that people at the grocery store (an Albertsons), knew my name from my check after about the 3rd time I went grocery shopping. I had my car break down several times on country roads and had farmer-types stop immediately, fix my flat and then escort me all the way to the next town. So, it's hard to reconcile all these really nice folks who I met who I know are now voting Republican. I think they are just not exposed to the harshness that people who live in big cities are exposed to, and they are generally suspicious of the government. In the city, you value government, it protects you, it keeps the streets safe and the traffic flowing and a million other things.

I think we have to consider those things when doing campaigns. Republicans play to this. Hence Bush's image on the "ranch", chopping wood, clearing brush, saying I am one of you rural people. He mangles his words and this endears him to the rural people, rather than turning them off. This is what we need to realize.

Right before the election, I watched Clinton work a crowd in Arkansas (on TV). Everything he did and said conveyed the message "I am one of you." He knew which issues to emphasize and which to steer clear of. I saw a similar deal with Clark. Now, both those guys are smart as whips and can deal with complicated world policies, but they still blend right in a rural environment. We need candidates who can cross that divide and campaigns that can highlight the issues they care about.

For what it's worth, JIMO.

[QC]

20. This is one of the best posts I have ever read at DU.

I especially like the part about how hard it can be to reconcile the voting habits of small town and rural people with their essential kindness. I know the feeling well, having spent most of my life in conservative places where I was treated well. Right now I'm living in a place where Republicans outnumber us 2-1, and yet the people here, particularly my coworkers, have treated me like family. I've never been made to feel more welcome anywhere, and yes, they are fully aware of my politics. That does complicate the whole "red state/blue state" oversimplification that so many people here are pushing so hard.

You're also very right about how Bill Clinton could talk to "regular folks" without "talking down." I think that's the secret of his success, and we desperately need another candidate who can do the same.

[BlueInRed]

23. ...blushing... thank you :)

[DemBones DemBones]

26. I agree -- one of the best posts I've ever read at DU.

:7

[BlueInRed]

31. thanks! :)

[DemDogs]

81. Good post and we have just the messenger we need

Edwards does a great job of talking to everyone. He says his dad always knew when someone was speaking down to him, and that Democrats sometimes put things in such a way that they act like they know all the answers for people like his dad. So he doesn't do that. And it really comes across. After the NH speech last night, you could just see the way he interacted with people.

[BlueInRed]

82. Yes, Edwards gets it :) n/t

[cry baby]

28. I live in small town Tennessee. I see these things every day....

You are right on. You might get flamed here by big city people that haven't seen this way of life. I've lived in both, like you. I see a huge difference.

Thanks for giving insight in such an articulate way.

[BlueInRed]

30. thanks! :)

what part of TN are you in? I lived in Franklin (south of Nashville) and have driven through West TN on 40 a million times. TN is a really beautiful state and I miss it. I'm back in TX these days, and I miss the tall, tall trees and how green everything is during the spring and summer.

It's nice to know others see this issue as well.

[cry baby]

32. I live in Franklin right now and have since 1988. I came from TX...

where are you in Tx?

[BlueInRed]

33. Wow

That is kind of freaky. I'm in Fort Worth now. Franklin is a great little town - an amazing combination of old and new. I first lived just inside the city limits of Nashville for about 5 years (I65 and Old Hickory) and then moved out to Franklin. I was there until 2002.

I went to school in Lubbock and it drives me absolutely crazy when Bush says "let's say this so the boys in Lubbock will understand"!

[cry baby]

35. I grew up in Arlington! It's a small world, isn't it?

You nailed it about the folks here. The DFW area is so different, especially Dallas. I go back to Arlington twice a year. I don't think I'd ever want to move back there. Family still lives there.

I liked Ft. Worth, my dad went to TCU.

Nice to meet you, I'll look for your posts! I really enjoyed this one tonight.

[BlueInRed]

37. It is a small world, indeed.

That is pretty amazing. The DFW area has grown so much, there used to be separation between Arlington and Fort Worth and now it just kind of blends all together into one huge mass. I know exactly what you mean about Dallas, too. And TCU -- my high school is about 8 blocks from there.

You know, I actually met someone from Franklin when I was in California this summer. He ran a hotel at the entrance to Yosemite. It seems like people from Franklin really get around. :D

Nice to meet you as well.

[Clark2008]

60. Tennessee has fine folk

I cringe at my freeper co-workers, but it's the best place in the world!

[cry baby]

65. With all it's faults, it's home.

[Clark2008]

53. Applause and if I could send you flowers, I would.

You nailed it!

:loveya:

[Demi_Babe]

64. WOW...best post I have EVER read here!

and you are 110% correct!!! Kudos to you!

[Adelante]

73. Very well done

Thank you for taking the time to write that out so cogently. :)

[HootieMcBoob]

78. What you say is true, but...

what you're talking about is just the facade of the Republican party. Really, what have Republicans ever really done for people in the south or in rural communities. The party that has, over the years, done the most to help rural folk more has always, always been the Democrats. The Republicans have and will screw them every chance they get. But they get away with it because perception is reality - or maybe a better way of saying it is "deception is reality".

What you're talking about is very very important though. I think we're taking a good first step with Dean as the new DNC. Give more power to the local Democrats and working from the roots up.

I also agree with you that Clark knows this innately. He will be able to frame this perfectly and communicate it beautifully.

[BlueInRed]

79. I agree it is a facade

But isn't it interesting that all it seems to take is a facade, not a real commitment to the people there?

To me, if we can turn things around by learning to talk their language, not talking down to them and other "framing" techniques, it is worth a try. :) The Republicans have turned this into an art form. I think most of the politicians from rural America get this - Clark, Edwards, Bill Clinton, and many others. And I also agree about Dean and the grassroots. Thanks for responding!

[googly]

87. The reason rurals vote repub in majority is >>>>>>

that the repugs have convinced the rurals that they
are trying to get the government off the people's back.

The mentality of rurals is nothing like those living in a
crowded, garbage strewn, under employed, under wal-marted,
over crimed, over high-school dropped out, and over drugged
typical big city ghetto. The rurals are fiercely self reliant,
rifle toting, bible thumping, but decent folks who will give
you a hand if you are in trouble. If your car ever breaks down,
pray it will be in a rural area, never in a big city.

If we are to succeed in country wide politics, we need the
language and platform ala Jack Kennedy. I can bet anything
if JFK were to run for another term it would have been a
landslide much bigger than Lyndon, and he would get elected
president today if that was possible. I remember portrait of
JFK hanging in every corporate office I visited. But never
seen a portrait of Bill Clinton even though I personally
admire BJC's politics.

[BlueInRed]

91. fiercely independent, you are right

That is one quality I failed to focus on and it is a huge one. Thanks for bringing it up! :)

[BlueInRed]

93. deleted, dupe

Don't know why the same comment got posted twice!

[CAG]

100. they THINK they are self-reliant...

but in reality they ignore most of the "hand-outs" given to rural areas:
who pulled them out of the great depression? FDR
who electrified the rural areas at great cost and work? LBJ
who gives them massive farm subsidies? congress

"under employed, under wal-marted, over crimed, over high-school dropped out, and over drugged typical big city ghetto."???

Rural areas are some of the most under-employed, welfare state ridden areas of the country, and I would argue the high school drop-out rates and hillbilly-heroine rates rival that of urban areas.

[NVMojo]

110. I agree with you, CAG, but then these things are part of why it is easy

for the GOP to lie to rurals.

[Tigress DEM]

128. repugs = govt off your back and into your pockets....

I really wish there was a way to help rural people understand what a liar Bush is. There is a high value on honesty in small towns... doesn't help to lie there, everyone knows anyway.

Another thing is that by pumping up the fat cat corporations, Bush has shifted the bill to the middle class and his tax cuts to the super rich are one of the main reasons social security is in danger, that and fat cat welfare.

How's that for a sound bite? Fat cat welfare.

Unlike the rest of us, who pay into FICA for 100% of our income, fat cats making over $90,000 a year only pay FICA up to $90,000 - even if they make millions. If that cap were removed, there would be no crises for social security and buisnesses would have to think twice about paying their CEOs and upper management obscene salaries and stuffing their workers pockets with peanuts.

[cry baby]

135. Fat Cat Welfare...I like that!

and I love your passion.

[Tigress DEM]

137. Yeah! Think I will make it part of my SS dialogue from now on!

Now if I can just get off the DU ans sleep a little. Not enough hours in the day. IF you know what I mean.:eyes:

[American Tragedy]

140. God, I hope you're trying to be ironic.

<<The mentality of rurals is nothing like those living in a
crowded, garbage strewn, under employed, under wal-marted,
over crimed, over high-school dropped out, and over drugged
typical big city ghetto. >>

And over black?

Come out here, and I'll show you which part of the state is garbage strewn, under-employed, over high-school dropped out, and over-drugged. Some might be surprised.

Oh, and if they really want government out of people's lives, maybe their state reps and church leaders would do likewise and get the fuck out of ours! I'm sick of hearing them bitch and moan about our gay-fairness ordinances, our casinos, our bars, etc. This city is the only reason that some of their constituents can still eat, and that is an economic fact.

Sorry, I'm in a bad mood. I realize this is something of a generalization.

[PassingFair]

164. They'll be glad government is "off their back" when

their farm subsidies dry up. No excuse. No pass.
I have had PLENTY peeps help me out in a "big city". Detroit, no less.
I don't want help from people who want to force their bigotry and religious rules on others.

[googly]

85. Great post! Must read!! n/t

[fortyfeetunder]

104. We need a Big Dog protege

I am still reading Clinton's autobiography. What is interesting about his political career in Arkansas, is he went into excruciating detail discussing all the rural towns and the outlying counties on his gubernatorial campaigns and went face to face with the citizens. He knew what people were concerned with and at least put the effort in to relate at their level.

Maybe the Big Dog can mentor someone on these characteristics in preparation for 2008.

[OKNancy]

107. If you are in the mood to do it

How about you expand this post and submit it to administration for a front page article.

Great post.

[Hippo_Tron]

147. Have you seen the West Wing episode "20 Hours in America"?

It basically does a great job of re-iterating exactly what you just said. To sum it up, two senior advisors to the President (who is a liberal Democrat) find themselves stranded in rural Indiana with one of their assistants. These two senior advisors are the very definition of the "liberal elite" and the whole time they are trying to figure out why people in Indiana are stupid enough to vote for the President's opponent. In the last few minutes, the assistant (who is much more down to earth) says that she wants to bang their heads together. In all of their arguing about political strategy they never stopped to realize how kind the people had been to them and how nobody had even brought up politics except for them and hinted that maybe the reason that they don't win votes in rural Indiana is that they try to tell people what is best, they don't listen to them because they think that they are stupid.

And BTW you are absolutely right about Clinton. He knew how to talk to people, not down to them.

[NVMojo]

45. Disturbed, it isn't a matter of being beneficial, they lie to the rurals.

But they talk like they are like the rurals and the rurals can be on the winning team with them.

I did some research on * and his campaign team and was shocked to discover how Cheney and Rove got to know the issue in Oregon within recent years about water and diversion for other causes that were drying up farming, etc. I never saw a Dem go out there to understand that issue, just Cheney and Rove, to rural Oregon. Those rednecks were estatic! Besides themselves. And then ...they vote the hell for Bush in the recent election and then ...just this week, King Bush announces cuts to farming subsidies.

I am not laughing about it, I just sit back and wait for the betrayed to wake up when they realize they aren't even on the bench, they aren't even the water boys for the winning team...

I am waiting for the other shoe to drop for the fooled rurals ...

[QC]

55. Maybe the fact that we so casually refer to these people as "rednecks"

might explain at least in part why they don't think we're on their side.

Just a thought....

On edit: Having said that, I think you're dead right about how the GOP manipulates rural voters. It's shameless, and it's been going on so long that I'm having a harder and harder time not deciding that they deserve whatever they get for falling for the same con over and over. But I try not to because that would mean giving up the very thing--sympathy for "regular folks"--that makes me a Democrat. It's tough, though.

[NVMojo]

95. you are right about that. and it is tough.

just look at the morals and values issue. What a joke but they used it to manipulate the simple religious folks, just creating a perception, something Rove is a master at...

[stevebreeze]

72. the same could be said for the upper middle class

They think the GOP is fighting for them, when in fact the GOP is often just as willing to screw them over as anyone else with an income less then $ 1 million/yr. They are getting larger table scraps and are fooled into believing they have a seat at the table.

[fujiyama]

15. That's nothing new

People have been going on about this since the '00 election, because the split was evident then as well.

It was just made even more obvious in '04.

I have nothing against Sarandon for saying what she believes and I'm certainly not one that believes the Hollywood liberals should keep quiet (after all the GOP hypocrites have no problem with Hollywood republicans) but I must question what someone like her would know about the split. After all, here's a woman that backed Nader in '00. I know, that's ancient history, but still...

[DemBones DemBones]

34. Wow, ever since the '00 election. . . fifty-one months ago!

Seriously, the 2000 election was just a little over four years ago, fifty-one months, and Democrats don't seem to be any closer to understanding rural people. Meanwhile, the GOP racks up rural votes. Perhaps we need to consider this more?

Start by reading Blue in Red's long post above if you don't understand why people value rural life/ life in towns that feel small even if they're not, and why those people mistrust "city people." We need to run candidates who can convince voters they are the kind of people who would stop and help a stranger fix a flat tire, the kind of people who pay attention to new people in their areas and learn their names right away. Bill Clinton did it but Al Gore and John Kerry were much less successful at it than George Bush**.

Think more about it. . . Would Al Gore or John Kerry help a stranger with a flat tire? I'd guess Gore or Kerry would stop and get help for the guy with the flat but then go on his own way. I don't think Dubya would change your tire himself but he might stay there and talk to you, tell stories about flat tires he'd had, lend you a jack. . . Dubya has some clue how to hunker down with the common folks. Bill Clinton can hunker down like nobody's business. It's a skill that goes a long way in American politics.

[cry baby]

36. I'm with you...After reading BlueInRed's post, it reminds me that

rural people have different lives than city people. Neither can see the other's way of life as a good one.

My point is that although Susan Sarandon has every right to speak out as do all hollywood types, it doesn't help the dems get the rural or "Heartland" vote.

[fujiyama]

38. What annoys me

is this notion of pandering and this whining among many in rural areas about the so called northern elite.

While I think that the party has made mistakes along the way (and Kerry made some as well), if Dems aren't connecting with these people to some extent it's their own fault.

Why are republicans doing better among those in the south and rural folk in general now?

It's pretty simple. They're capitalizing on their fears of 'terra-ists' (mostly brown skinned people) and gays ('those faggots can't get married').

While Clinton did win these people over, he was a rare Democrat. He was extremely charismatic. He spoke their language. He grew up poor and in what some might consider a 'white trash' family (though I think his family raised him right overall especially regarding race). Clinton also was a moderate.

Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic, but I don't feel like pandering to anyone about any issue, whether it's choice (and no the party should not change its stance on this issue) or gay rights. We can compromise on the gun issue and the party should also reconsider the current stance on 'free' trade and NAFTA., but I don't think it will really make much of a difference.

I have seen no good suggestions as to how to win the south or rural areas. The only two candidates I saw this time that MIGHT have been able to do it were Edwards and Clark, but even they would have had an uphill battle.

Maybe some in rural areas and the south should reconsider some of THEIR ways. Maybe it's time they understood that gays and lesbians SHOULDN't be second class citizens, that being pro choice isn't being pro abortion.

[cry baby]

48. I think a compromise on the gun issue would go a long way in

securing rural votes.

It would be great if they could open their minds. But many rural people don't have computers or don't use their computers to find out the real news. They get their national news in 30 minutes from NBC, ABC, or CBS. They believe they are getting everything they need to know about the world so that they can vote accordingly. And you know how the MSM is these days.

They don't really whine either, they just don't understand someone from that elite world. They just "don't get out much".

You are right in everything you say (except the whining part). Maybe it's time to speak more clearly and talk about things that rural voters can agree with. No need to pander or change dem policy, just talk about different things to these people. I also don't think dems should move to the right, just talk about different things with different people.

[QC]

54. You're right, and the failure to understand is not a one-way street.

Urbanites can be every bit as provincial as anyone from the remotest holler in all of Appalachia. So much of what is posted here about rural and small-town America clearly comes from people who clearly do not have even the slightest idea of what those places are really like.

There are issues that are important to all people, regardless of color, sex, sexuality, or region: decent jobs, going to a doctor when they're sick, having some hope for their future. We need to focus on those.

[fujiyama]

56. I agree

about focusing on those issues that affect all of us. Basically it's what Dean was saying (though I'm not sure he was the best messenger or the way he said it was perfect) but he had the right point - start focusing on issues that affect us all - jobs, healthcare, education, and as you mentioned - HOPE for the future.

[cry baby]

58. yes, we need to put those issues out front.

[BlueInRed]

59. yes, guns are a big deal n/t

[BlueInRed]

49. It's more than that, I think

My hometown, Fort Worth, used to be solidly Democratic a decade and a half ago. Now Ft. Worth isn't rural, although people here like to pretend it is. The issues that moved a lot of people in Fort Worth were lower taxes, fiscal responsibiity, less big government, strong defense, hard on crime, those sorts of things. I was around as the shift was happening a decade and a half ago. Terrorism just wasn't on anyone's radar. I never heard people talking about gays. I knew a few people all in a knot on abortion, but really not that many. But they all switched to Republican, nonetheless. And I mean Fort Worth was solidly Democratic and now it's solidly Republican (like 60-70%).

Now, in Lubbock, it is a different story. You are right about guns and trade being issues - they care about getting farm goods (cotton, etc) on trucks from Canada to Mexico. And as for terrorism, I do think it scares a lot of the small town people. They are used to leaving their doors unlocked at night and stuff like that, and the stuff that happened on 911 is probably unimaginable to them.

I guess I think the buzzword "values" is really code language for "one of us". I don't think it's necessary to abandon our positions on abortion and civil unions to win them back. I don't think it's pandering to care about their concerns and try to address them, as long as we don't abandon our core positions. And I think the stereotypes of rural people are misleading; the reality is far more complicated.

We need to recognize how a few minor changes in the way we frame issues and the qualities we look for in a nominee could make a huge difference in the outcome. It may not seem like a big deal to those not from rural areas, but it is a big deal to them. I don't think the party should become Republican light, but we should pay attention to how simple things like relating to people can make a difference.

[NVMojo]

50. the Kerry campaign sent tree huggers from California to work our

streets for votes. Well, in this part of rural Nevada, the majority of people, businesses and government hacks, make their living off of hard rock gold mining and you bring tree huggers here, well ...that pretty much sealed Kerry's fate in this town, a town where Cheney showed up and the whole place almost shut down so people could line Cedar Street with their lawn chairs and wave American flags at his armored limo as he passed by with local Repukes in attendance ...and then Cheney told them how Kerry was going to raise mining fees on public lands to take care of a budget shortfall in fire-fighting, etc. ...

when the Kerry campaign finally got around to sending Elizabeth Edwards here, she was a doll, it was too late.

Dems need to get a major clue in trying to understand cities smaller than 100,000 .... or 50,000 ...for that matter cuz it all adds up.

BTW, thanks for the discussion tonight.

[BlueInRed]

61. Perfect example!

The Rs showed they knew the things that mattered to these people.

[NVMojo]

133. the key to the Cheney speech was telling the locals they would lose

their good paying mining jobs if Kerry got in office. That same message was told in farming and ranching communities too, only about those industries. These people in the White House could lie to a 90-year old blind man and smile while doing it, in fact, they could lie to the face of a 90-year old man who could see them doing it.

[fujiyama]

63. Hmmm

That's an interesting story about the Kerry campaign sending "tree huggers" to rural NV areas (though it's also possible these people were sent from Move On or Act).

Either way, this would show that the party didn't learn enough from Dean's defeat in IA. Dean's loss in IA was partly due to a similar reason. He too relied heavily on college students from out of town to campaign for him.

Needless to say it didn't work out all that well for him. It's also unfortunate that the party, the Kerry campaign, and other groups didn't learn from Dean's mistakes.

But even if that were true, we're facing a major problem in the south. People often comlain about Kerry losing the south, but almost every senator lost in the south - KY, NC, SC, FL, LA, GA. We kept AR, but I can't think of any other good result from a southern state.

[cry baby]

66. I hate to say it, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that rural or

small town people care about different things than, let's say, city folks do.

The dems MUST take control of how the party is viewed and not let the repubs define us. I thought Kerry stayed on message pretty well, but he didn't speak in plain language. I don't think being smart should be a draw back, but he rambled some and spoke about things in a complicated way. Rural people need "sound bites", something simple and easy to remember. They aren't dumb, but they watch little news on TV and read small town newspapers which don't cover many issues except perhaps the ones that will sell papers, such as gay rights, gun control, etc. It will be an uphill battle.

[Tigress DEM]

126. If the DEMS get back to our roots and expose this administrations lies....

then we can get the support of EVERY person of integrity in this country to remove GW2 and company.

http://www.votetoimpeach.org

Small town people may not have crack houses down the block from them, but neither do they want to allow repubs or anyone to dismantle the Constitution. They cherish freedom and value honor. They should stand against THIS administration if only for those two reasons.

My father grew up in a small town, went to a one room school house and onto the Korean conflict. His values included defending his country, but his small town had even more of a sense of honor than that. You know, no one locks their doors etc... because they expect everyone to respect their rights.

There is a resoultion going to the house on Wednesday with a section in it so loosely worded as to authorize the Sec of Homeland Security to suspend ALL LAWS without Judicial Review, it says to build barriers to keep illegal immigrants from crossing the boarder states, but because it is so opened ended, it could start with that and go anywhere.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/5/15448/41910

Right wing wackos are saying that lefties who protest the war should be killed.

US is torturing people in Guantanamo Bay Cuba at a US Navy base and for over 3 years has denied these individuals (who have not been actually convicted of any crimes) access to their families or lawyers until recent interventions finally succeeded.

Rural people have boat loads of common sense. Rural people may not know about stuff, but they are just as human and just as capable of being moved by factual information about the GRAVE injustices being perptuated by this administration.

Approaching anyone with a holier than thou attitude isn't going to help matters.

People are people and everyone has a stake in this country not being flushed down the toilet by a spoiled rich brat who thinks war is a great opportunity to drive up the price of gas.

[cry baby]

130. That is my point, they don't know that the dismantling

of our Constitution is happening. I wasn't trying to be holier than thou and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Just trying to explain these rural people around here and where they are coming from. They don't have the coffee shops to go to in many small towns anymore. They probably wouldn't be caught dead in a Starbucks. They don't get together like they used to to talk about the issues that concern their daily lives.

I guarantee that there will be no article in our papers around here that will tell the story (Gannett owns the local papers). The letters to the editor are the only way they might get an idea that something is up.

[Tigress DEM]

138. Want some flyers?

I'm aiming to make some up for the DEM Meetup on Feb 9th. I can shoot some your way if you like.

I know people have sent me mail to my inbox, but despite my frequent flying on the DU, I still have no clue how to tell you to do that.

Send me a mail if you know how, otherwise reply to this thread and we can figure something out.

[cry baby]

139. I can print some up, tell me what your flyers say. n/t

[Tigress DEM]

141. Hang on, let me go put something together.

[Tigress DEM]

142. Sorry it took so long. The Top is the flyer and with it are 2 fact sheets

First line - 14 pt for Title - Centered
12 pt for 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th headers - Centered
10 pt for body - bold 1 & 2 - Centered
10 pt for body 3 & 4 - Centered


Common Sense Priorities On Clean Water

Common Sense says:
Clean water is essential to life on this planet.
Use it. Re-use it. Don't Abuse it.

Bush agenda says:
Clean water isn't as important as balancing my budget.
De-regulate, Deny, Defer the responsibility to the next guy.

Common Sense says:
Clean water doesn't happen by itself these days.
Huge corporate polluters should pay.
Aging facilities should be repaired, kept up.
Dumping raw sewage into public waterways should be avoided not encouraged.

Bush agenda says:
A little poisonus jet fuel, sewage, arsenic won't really hurt anyone.
DOD & Corporate polluters are above the law, don't worry about it.
The facilities are fine.
Only poor people swim in the lakes anyway, if they die off, so what?

********************************************************************


Supporting Documentation in case anyone asks you about this:

Environmental Integrity Project * Lake Michigan Federation Natural Resources Defense Council * The Ocean Conservancy Sierra Club * Tennessee Izaak Walton League * U.S. PIRG Waterkeeper Alliance

EPA’s Proposed Sewage Dumping Policy:
Environmental and Public Health Perspective

This document provides the response of the groups identified above to information that has been circulated by the sewage treatment industry concerning a proposed EPA policy to authorize the discharge of partially treated, or “blended,” sewage during rain events.

FACT: Blended sewage does not meet Clean Water Act regulatory requirements.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: Blended effluent must meet all of the permit limits for a wastewater treatment plant (also called a “publicly owned treatment works” or POTW).
TRUTH: Blending is illegal because it violates the long-standing “bypass rule” in the Clean Waer Act which prohibits diversion of sewage around treatment units where there are feasible alternatives. While discharges must meet the effluent limitations of the POTW, they do so by substituting dilution for full treatment.

FACT: EPA’s proposal relaxes restrictions on discharging inadequately treated sewage into waterways during rain events.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: EPA’s proposal does NOT change any regulations. Blending POTWs must at all times meet EPA’s current technology-based “secondary treatment” standard .
TRUTH: This guidance is illegal because it conflicts with the existing bypass regulation without actually changing it in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. The bypass regulation is designed to prevent dischargers from meeting effluent limitations (such as those in the secondary treatment rule) through dilution. This guidance would allow dilution to substitute for effective treatment.

FACT: Blending is dangerous because it would allow sewage-infested wastewater to be discharged without removing most of the disease-causing pathogens and other pollutants.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: POTWs disinfect wastewater before discharge, which is the step that kills the pathogens that could lead to waterborne illness. EPA’s proposed policy is clear – blended effluent should be disinfected and POTWs should monitor for bacteria.
TRUTH: Not all POTWs disinfect their wastewater – for example, several major plants in Chicago do not -- and EPA’s proposed policy does not require disinfection. EPA’s proposed policy requires only primary treatment, which removes solids and floatable material. In addition, some states require POTWs to disinfect to meet state water quality standards. According to preliminary data from EPA, it appears that between 25 percent and 50 percent of sewage treatment plants are neither required to disinfect nor meet a discharge standard for pathogens.

FACT: Allowing polluters to discharge inadequately treated sewage into our nation’s waters will have adverse, long-term environmental consequences.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: Blending is a water quality safeguard. Without blending, POTW treatment units will “wash out,” leading to immediate and adverse water quality impacts, or increased sewage backups.
TRUTH: Blending is an expedient means of avoiding fixing the sewer system to provide effective sewage treatment. The sewage treatment industry supports providing partial treatment instead of none. The public supports (and the Clean Water Act requires) full treatment for sewage. To do that, we need to invest in sewer system storage, rehabilitation and repair, which bipartisan legislation in Congress provides some funds for every year, but not nearly enough.

FACT: EPA is lifting the requirement that facilities fully treat sewage, and will allow more viruses and parasites in the water Americans drink and swim in.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: EPA’s proposed policy restates more than 30 years of federal policy toward blending, and clears up confusion resulting from inconsistent approaches to blending across the country. EPA’s proposal clarifies how permitting authorities should document blending at POTWs and captures the “best practices” in use by state agencies and POTWs today.
TRUTH: Current law prohibits bypassing of treatment units unless there is no feasible alternative. 40 CFR 122.41 (bypass rule); 33 U.S.C. 1242(q) (requiring POTW permits to conform to the Combined Sewer Overflow Policy). EPA has brought a number of enforcement actions over the years to enforce these prohibitions. Now, instead of enforcing the law, EPA is proposing to change the law to allow unlawful and inadequate sewage treatment practices to continue. We note that industry does not dispute that this change will allow more viruses and parasites in the water Americans drink and swim in.

FACT: More Americans would get sick from waterborne illnesses because of this indefensible and illegal policy change.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: EPA’s policy must be finalized to provide national consistency and to further water quality. This long-standing wet weather policy is entirely legal and meets all permit requirements.
TRUTH: The treatment industry response does not contradict the public health risks that discharging inadequately treated sewage would pose. The choice between weakening the Clean Water Act and endangering public health or allowing the law to remain intact while working to promote more funding for safe and healthy water for all Americans is clear. EPA should enforce the law and disallow bypassing when there is a feasible alternative that will better protect public health and the environment.

FACT: This policy would allow sewage treatment plants to discharge largely untreated sewage in routine storm events.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: This policy applies only in major storm events.
TRUTH: Current law already allows discharges in major storm events when there is no feasible alternative. This policy would allow largely untreated sewage to be discharged during any sized rain event when the capacity of the secondary treatment unit is exceeded. This change would encourage shortsighted and sloppy practices.

FACT: This policy would cost the American public more in the long run by raising the cost of drinking water filtration, closing beaches, contaminating shellfish beds, and making people sick.
SEWAGE INDUSTRY “SPIN”: This policy would save $100 to $200 billion dollars in unnecessary costs.
TRUTH: EPA has not calculated the cost savings associated with blending and cannot do so because it does not have good information on which facilities blend and under what circumstances. EPA has said that the estimates of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies are “inaccurate.”

We ask you to oppose EPA’s proposed “blending” policy and to support effective sewage treatment consistent with longstanding Clean Water Act requirements.

For more information, call Betsy Otto at American Rivers at 202-347-7550 x3033 or Nancy Stoner at the Natural Resources Defense Council at 202-289-2394.



Poisonus Jet Fuel
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press contact: Dr. Jennifer Sass, Erik Olson, or Elliott Negin, 202-289-2405; Dr. Gina Solomon, NRDC San Francisco, 415-875-6100
If you are not a member of the press, please write to us at [e-mail] or see our contact page.

ACADEMY SUCCUMBS TO PENTAGON-WHITE HOUSE-INDUSTRY PRESSURE, RECOMMENDS PERCHLORATE SAFETY LEVEL THAT FAILS TO PROTECT CHILDREN

NRDC Says Recommendation to Add Iodide to Prenatal Vitamins Is "Too Little, Too Late"

WASHINGTON (January 10, 2005) -- The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) report released today, which concluded that a higher exposure level to the toxic rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate than recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency is not harmful, could threaten the health of millions of American children, said NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). The NAS report recommended a level that is about 23 times higher than the one proposed by EPA and several states.
According to documents released earlier today by the group, the NAS panel's recommendation was likely shaped by a covert campaign by the White House, Pentagon and defense contractors to twist the science and strong-arm the academy. (For more information on the campaign, click here.)
"This recommendation confirms our fear - that the White House, Pentagon and its contractors were able to unduly influence the academy," said Erik D. Olson, an NRDC senior attorney. "We've never seen such a brazen campaign to pressure the National Academy of Sciences to downplay the hazards of a chemical, but it fits the pattern of this administration manipulating science at the expense of public health."
The panel's recommendation for a level that would protect pregnant women and babies is based on one weak industry study that fed perchlorate at that level to only seven healthy adults for two weeks. "The industry study tells us nothing about effects on babies or long-term perchlorate exposure," said Dr. Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at NRDC. "It dismissed the rest of the studies, which is beyond comprehension."
The panel also stated (on page 11 of the report) that "while studies are being conducted, the committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all pregnant women have adequate iodide intake and, as a first step, recommends that consideration be given to adding iodine to all prenatal vitamins."
"It's like exposing pregnant women to cigarette smoke and telling them to wear gas masks," said Dr. Gina Solomon, a physician and NRDC senior scientist. "To suggest that part of the solution for pregnant women is to take vitamins to protect their babies from perchlorate exposure is bizarre. It's too little, too late. The burden should be on polluters, not pregnant moms, to protect babies from this toxic chemical."
Even with the NAS panel's recommendation, it is still possible that EPA and states could set a drinking water standard for perchlorate at 1 parts per billion to 4 parts per billion, said Dr. Solomon. After considering total perchlorate exposure from all sources - including water, food and milk - and after adjusting for body weight of fetuses and newborns, drinking water standards for perchlorate could still wind up low.
The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 1 million members and e-activists nationwide, served from offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Related NRDC Pages
White House, Pentagon, Industry Secretly Colluded to Skew NAS Perchlorate Report, Documents Show, Press Release
White House and Pentagon Bias National Academy Perchlorate Report, NRDC Backgrounder

[cry baby]

143. Excellent work!!! You are a Tigress! I'll print it and put some out.

That is so much info, wow!:thumbsup:

[NVMojo]

145. Great work! Thanks!!!

[NVMojo]

94. nope, I was here, they were with the Kerry campaign based in Reno

...and then they sent a man who used to be with the DNC from Salt Lake City about 2 weeks before the election to lobby the Western Shoshone around here, it was too late by then. It was a poorly managed campaign and I think it is because Kerry trusted people who had no clue about the West. Bush and Cheney do, Rove has lived in Reno, family still lives there. I think he went to school in Utah at one time. Cheney is from Wyoming. They are for the decimation of natural resources and rural west makes their living on this, otherwise, there's not much reason to be out in the rural West.

[Bridget Burke]

77. Perhaps there weren't enough Nevadans for Kerry

But I'm sure that YOU were out there walking the streets with the "tree huggers".

[NVMojo]

92. nope, not with the tree huggers, they didn't really associate with the

locals in the Kerry campaign.

I was with the locals but we were dead in the water when Reid never came up here and helped open doors for Kerry with the mining industries. He could have done that. They give him lots of money cuz he supports mining.

Do you not realize that Bush only took Nevada with about 50.2% of the vote? The Repugs are claiming "rural" Nevada pushed Bush over the winning edge. I can say they may have with most rural counties going over 85% for Bush.

[QC]

52. It's understandable to want to assign blame,

particularly where it is deserved, but it doesn't win us any votes.

Believe me, I share your frustration. It makes me want to scream that people will actually base their votes on same-sex marriage and the like.

But I think that the reason social issues like that have come to assume such supreme importance is that when it comes to "kitchen table issues" the two parties are way too much alike. When the main difference between them is cultural stuff, then that's where the battle will be fought.

I think it's time for a little old-fashioned class war.

[DemBones DemBones]

68. Why do we pander to urban voters? nt

[NVMojo]

90. because when they look for masses of voter populations, it's easier

to focus on big cities. But the combined totals in rural cities in the West haven't been overlooked by the Repubs. And their issues tend to be conservative in nature.

[Tigress DEM]

123. OK so repubs go and flap their jaws in rural areas....

but how many promises has this administration kept to anyone?

GW2 said he would support the gays in 2000 to get their support.
Screwed 'em.

Worked with the AARP on perscription issues had them eating out of his hands.
Screwed 'em.

So just because someone goes out and plays hollywood jock in a cornfield doesn't mean he knows or cares about these people for 10 minutes past the photo op.

I think the whole country will get that sooner or later.

[cry baby]

124. Maybe after the election, people stop paying attention. n/t

[Tigress DEM]

129. Yeah, gotta plow the south 40 or get kids to band practise. Life.

[googly]

96. Billy Clinton would stop for every flat tire of an attractive blonde

[proudbluestater]

42. Damn! I missed it! I did see her on Bill Maher late in the last season

talking about vote fraud and Maher blew her off. She was truly the first one out of the box to address the issue. I hope they will replay her on tomorrow!! She really rocks!

Bill Maher begins a new season Feb. 18 or 19th. I'm looking forward to that, too.

[Clark2008]

47. Good Lord, I've been saying this all over the place today

but, since I'm not Susan Sarandon, I don't get credit.

:eyes:

LOL! Seriously, I have, particularly in the South-bashing threads. I'm glad Susan said this. I really like that woman. :)

[independentchristian]

121. Okay, so when people tried to promote John Edwards

why did Democrats on the web resist, if Susan Sarandon nailed it?

John Edwards was everything that she was talking about and even she was overlooking the obvious

[NVMojo]

131. go back to what a rural community is like ....

the answer is there and #17 said it better.

[NVMojo]

144. at the close of her discussion, Sarandon told the audience to

speak up and make em uncomfortable!! I liked that part ...

[Hippo_Tron]

146. We should have learned this from the election of 1896

For those of you unfamiliar with it, William Jennings Bryan the great economic populist was the Democratic nominee. His opponent was William McKinley the pro-business anti-union Republican. Here's the thing, this election was the exact opposite of the problem that we are having now. Bryan carried almost all of what today's red states are (he swept the south and the western/rocky mountain states). Bryan would've won the election if, for not one thing, labor. Workers didn't support him despite the fact that under McKinley their unions would continue to be busted up by the military and national guard and they wouldn't receive any government support for things like a regulated work day and minimum wage (whereas under Bryan, they would). The reason that labor didn't support Bryan was because he was a Protestant who didn't drink and supported temperance reforms. They simply wouldn't support the guy who would've improved their economic status dramatically because he supported a few restrictions on alcohol. Had this not been the case, Bryan would've won in the industrial midwest and northeast and would've had an electoral majority. The same thing happened in 2000/2004 except instead of loosing the Norhteast and industrial midwest, we lost the south and the rocky mountain states that should be voting with us for economic reasons.

[forgethell]

148. Understanding isn't enough.

Most Democrats that I know understand the difference. What is lacking is the will to meet the "rurals" halfway. Their concerns are as vlaid as ours are. And they, or conservatives anyway, seem to have a few more votes, too.

If we ever want to regain power, we are going to have to take positions that win votes.

[BlueInRed]

149. I don't think we do understand

I think one thing holding us back is stereotypes about rurals. It's far more complicated than a lot of people make it.

I do agree we need to address their concerns, but that doesn't necessarily mean making huge changes in our stand on social issues. It does mean conveying to them that we have a lot more in common and want many of the same things they want -- fundamental fairness, a decent living, a good home life, freedom, and a level playing field for all people. We tend to focus too much on our differences, instead of convincing them of our similarities in what we want for our lives, our children and our country.

The GOP got where it was by intentionally dividing us. Clinton focused on our common goals, common desires. What we need to do is prove we have a lot more in common that we and they realize.

[forgethell]

151. OK, let's take just one position.

For the sake of argument, let's take abortion. I want it clearly understood before I begin that the view that I am about to state is purely for the sake of argument and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the author or DU.

Abortion. Remember how much Senator Kerry "respected" the views of the "pro-life" woman at the debates? How sensitive and concerned he was about the pro-life viewpoint? But did he yield one silly millimeter on abortion should be freely available? I must have missed that.

Do you really think that the "pro-life" people care about being "respected"? Especially from people who are obviously lying. They know, if we do not, that the pro-life and the pro-choice positions are irreconcilable. There is no compromise. Either we win, or they win.

So far, through the use of the courts, our position has triumphed. But that may be about to change. During all this time, the right has struggled and fought to get the issue back to the states, where they could battle politically, and we have resisted. Now, thanks to the incompetence of the election, they may be about to reverse this. Now we are the ones afraid the courts will rule that abortion is murder, and take the issue from the states.

Yet, if it had gone to the states before, or if we had been willing to compromise some, then the political tsunami would probably not have overwhelmed us.

I don't know if abortion was the issue that killed us. I think that national security, as it always does, trumps everything else. I'm just saying that some of our issues are not compromisable. If we can win through political persuasion, perhaps we should adjust those positions. Going though the courts has provoked a backlash. Besides, why should "rural" people accept court rulings, when we do not. Some people still aren't over election 2000. At this date, it doesn't matter anymore. * has already served his first term, and is on his second. And despite all our anger and work and donations, we just didn't have the votes.

We can kid ourselves that 2004 was stolen, but we'd be better off trying to win over more of the middle-class,

[BlueInRed]

152. Clinton is a perfect example

Most people (most being the operative word) vote on multiple issues, not a single issue. Clinton won a good number of rural states saying he thought abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I do not believe the tide has shifted the other way. Clinton knew instinctively how to focus on the shared values Democrats have with rural people, without alienating them on other issues.

I could have told you the day Kerry was nominated he wouldn't sell that well in the South. Other rural areas, I really can't speak to, but culturally, he's just not the kind of candidate that moderate southerners go for. And it's not a dig on Kerry or his qualifications; it's just a gut instinct.

I'll probably never convince you that framing and focus will make the difference. But that is my belief. My best examples are Clinton's 92 and 96 campaigns, and the contrast of Gore running on those exact same policy stands in 2000, with a much different result. I believe in spite of Monica, Clinton would have won reelection and a lot of that is how he frames issues, brushes aside other issues and how he relates with rural people. I don't believe Clinton would have said what Kerry did about abortion.

While Clinton is more moderate than a lot of people in DU, if you look at the hot button issues they claim sealed this election, Clinton really didn't deviate much from the current platform. He did talk about the issues differently and he did connect with people.

I saw Clinton giving a speech in Arkansas right before the election. He talked about how we were getting killed on God, guns and gays. He said to the crowd something like "now, you know how to talk to people about these issues and you need to get out there and convince them we're not going to take away their guns, we go to church and stuff." He was basically saying, the Kerry people haven't figured out how to sell this stuff in Arkansas, but you know how to sell it and just get out there and do it!

[forgethell]

153. OK, but

how many Bill Clintons does this party have? 1!! and he can't run again. Hilary will be no substitute.

Clinton, despite his faults, had a lot of charm. The same cannot be said for any other Democrat that I can see. When you say "framed" and "talked about differently" what you are saying is "misled", or even "lied". Remember "He kept the promises he meant to keep"?

That is to say, despite what many, maybe most, people on this board think, "rural" is not the same as "stupid, and neither is "conservative", "Southerner", or "pro-life". They remember, and nobody likes being talked down to.

"Framing" will not work for people who look at actions rather than words. They are interested in the results, not explanations or excuses. We have values, they have values. And the smart ones look to see how their values are being treated.

But as you say, abortion is not the only issue that "rural" people are concerned about. High taxes (in their opinion), gay-marriage, run-away courts, national security, etc. As a lone liberal in a conservative workplace, I talk to these folks alot, and I pretty well know what they think, and why they think it. They prefer the issues be addressed head-on, and frankly, so do I. We disagree with each other, but we know where we stand and remain friends. "Framing" seems too much like 1984 for my tastes.

"Focus" now. I like that. I think we should talk about the issues that we think are important, and try to keep our attention, and theirs, on them. Always remembering, of course, that their issues are as important to them as ours are to us.

Let me ask you this: Would we give up our positions on the social issues if we could get our way on the economic ones? Well, I would, myself, because, as I have stated previously, I am an economic Democrat. But most here wouldn't. And that's fine. But then, why do we expect social conservatives to cave for their own economic benefit, if we wouldn't do it?

I don't really know the answer as to why we don't win elections, but I suspect it has a lot to do with pushing the social envelop faster, not further than we should.

[BlueInRed]

154. your assertion is we need to change policy

and I've said we need to reframe. That is what I believe is necessary. Democrats don't have to have Clinton's charisma skills. Democrats do need to learn the way he talks about issues.

I don't think Clinton LIED about the issues and if that is what you believe framing is, then you ought read Lakoff's book. I just completely disagree with the premise the party needs to move right. The party needs to learn how to sell. And I don't appreciate your saying I'm advocating lying, as I am not.

An aside, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who thinks Clinton lied to get elected. Clinton lied about having extramarital sex. I thought he did a damn good job of keeping his promises.

As for your comments about rural people, you need to read all my posts on this thread, especially # 17. I don't think rural people are stupid or anything of the sort. I've lived in rural areas.

This is the ultimate struggle in the party. It is between those of us who think the party has a selling problem and those of us who think otherwise.

[forgethell]

159. Read the book.

I don't know if the party needs to move right, or not. But, then, neither does anybody else.

I don't know what you advocate, and made no such statement that you advocated lying. I said, if I recall correctly, that this is what "framing" can mean. Perhaps I was unclear in my formulation. At any event, I made no accusations against you, and I apologize if I "framed" it otherwise. Clinton, however, ran as a moderate. he was not. He was a pragmatist. His instincts were to the left, but his intellect said it was a mistake, politically. The statement I made about keeping all the promises he meant to keep was not referring to extramarital sex.

Look, the social issues are nothing to me. I don't care whether gays have the right to marry or not. Same on most of the other social issues; I can live with it either way. I'm just saying that the conservatives, let's call it like it is, will not be fooled by "re-framing". Moderating our rhetoric, talking about it differently, etc. is not what they want. They want a change in our position.

Nothing wrong with that; we want a change in theirs. Ain't politics grand? That's how we will settle it. Right now, we're losing. All I'm advocating is a tactical retreat, not a strategic one.

[BlueInRed]

160. This is what you said

When you say "framed" and "talked about differently" what you are saying is "misled", or even "lied".

Have you read Lakoff's book on framing, Don't Think of an Elephant? I've talked to no one who has read it who thinks framing issues is about misleading or lying to people. It's about the psychology of persuasion and how the mind retains information. And what it boils down to is how you say stuff matters a lot.

And Bill Clinton most certainly is a moderate. Having lived in purple states for over a decade, the people are not getting more conservative. The Republicans are just better at selling their ideas, creating divisions and pushing buttons.

And I do advocate backing off 1 issue - gun control. As I said much earlier in this thread. Backing off abortion (reversing Roe v Wade) will put lots of privacy rights in jeopardy that have nothing to do with abortion, as Roe v. Wade is a leading case on the interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just abortion. One of the reasons the lawyers in the Federalist Society (Scalia, Thomas, etc) want to reverse Roe v Wade is to rewrite the impact of the Bill of Rights. It's not just about abortion.

[karynnj]

155. The difference seems style not content

I really don't see a difference between safe, legal and rare and the more detailed answer Kerry gave. The difference I see is that you had a charming southern who they identified with in one case and a sincere NE guy the other time. (Sincere was the best adjative I could think of for Kerry's demeanor on the abortion question.) One question is why we Northerns can find a Southern charming, but we're told the South can't find a Northeastern or a New Yorker charming. If not charming, at least likable?

In terms of basic moral values, I really don't see Clinton as projecting a more moral image than Kerry - much the oposite.

[BlueInRed]

156. I disagree

Respectfully, I didn't care for Kerry's answer, although I'm not going into details on exactly why, as I'll just get flamed by the large Kerry contingency. And I didn't raise the abortion issue, only responded to the direct question put to me. Talking about abortion is a very tiny part of a much larger problem of learning how little tweaks in language can make big difference in result.

I didn't say Southerners wouldn't like Kerry because he was from the NE, you did. And it reflects a basic erroneous assumption about the reason Kerry didn't sell in the South. I think it is personal qualities, the ability to connect, the ability to mix easily with rural people (down to earth), and plenty of people from the NE have those qualities, JFK and RFK for example (even though they didn't come from a rural background).

If you want to know my basic position on expanding in rural areas, please read post 17. It boils down to 4 things -- respect, fitting in / connecting, talking about issues in a way they can relate to, and not focusing on our differences.

And I don't buy the moral values stuff that's floating around; I've seen polls saying the number of people on voting on moral values in 04 was down to almost half of those who voted on it in 00. That's just MSM spin IMO. And in my opinion, the real immoral person in this past election is Bush.

[forgethell]

161. But don't you think

after all 4 of your points have been seen to, that people might still disagree on the issues and vote for the man or party who comes closest to their own view of things?

[BlueInRed]

162. Yes, but having lived in purple states and rural areas...

Sure, that's a possibility. It's my opinion they do agree with us on most issues, but they just don't realize it because the Republicans are so good at focusing their attention on the places where they disagree. And it's our job to make them see how much they really do agree with us.

When they do polling on which issues people agree with and they list the R position and the D position, the D position wins going away (as long as it's not identified as a D position). We've tweaked our platform and modified our stances a lot. It hasn't helped that much.

I sincerely believe it's a selling problem and other than a few political stars, we pretty much suck at selling. I also think it's a "not listening to the locals" problem and not giving them resources in campaigns.

I think you have to look at guys like Clinton, and Democrats in purple states (like Gov Bredesen in TN) and find out what they are doing. I think it's the things I mentioned. Gov Bredesen is not a charismatic, handsome or charming guy (and he's from NY), but he manages to bridge the gap. Before the TennCare issue got all messed up, he had an approval rating of over 70%.

[forgethell]

163. Well, maybe

you're right. Maybe not. Undoubtedly though, the Democratic Party will try it your way. Let's see if they can gain anything in 2006. If not, then I would suggest a brutal reappraisal of things in 2008, or there will be 8 more years of Republican administration. IMO

[karynnj]

167. If the media had wanted to "sell" Kerry, they could have

Clinton when he ran in 1992 benefited from largely positive press. Some he earned, some was because the press core loved him.

Kerry has been called charismatic earlier in his life. If he was described as the somewhat shy, relatively modest genuine hero that is almost an old fashioned stereotype. I grew up in Indiana, so I have at least some red state background.

I know 2004 is over, but I think that in looking for answers we should not discount how stacked against us the press was. The real question was were they scared to oppose Bush, Bush tools or was it their personal dislike of Kerry. (and if the latter was it unique to Kerry) If it was not related to Kerry, then the real question is how do we address this.

[BlueInRed]

168. It's not the media's job to sell, it's the candidate's job

My view of Kerry is much different than yours. I do not think Kerry was good at selling himself or the party's stands, especially in rural areas. I would never describe Kerry as down to earth. Whether that's him personally, or the results of his campaign staff and strategy, who knows.

And I do know the press does a number on us. But in spite of that, Democrats manage to win in rural areas, including Southern (such as Bredesen), Midwestern (Vilsack) and Western (Harry Reid). There were many rural areas where Kerry performed much worse than local Democrats. Heck, we even won the Governor's house in Montana.

You don't have to agree with my reasons, but it is clear that Democrats other than Clinton and Southerners win in rural places. The question is why and I've proposed my answers. And many of these people are not charismatic. They won with wide-ranging viewpoints, some more conservative, some not. The question is why and whether Democrats are willing to look closely at all the possible reasons, giving every one a full and fair hearing. Until national Democrats do that and come up with an explanation that incorporates all these different things, we are going to have a problem.

Like I said before, Governor Bredesen of TN is not charismatic and he's from NY, so the idea that it's simply charisma or that they must be Southern seems to be disproven.

[BlueInRed]

157. deleted dupe

[GOPBasher]

165. But what can we do to attract more rural people?

I mean, we've always supported farmers and the Republicans haven't, yet they vote Republican based on social issues. That goes for everyone in small tows or rural areas. In general, they vote Republican based on social issues, so what can we do to attract them? If we compromise some core beliefs such as equal rights for gays, what good are we? We might as well be Republicans.

On edit, by "equal rights for gays, I don't necessarily mean total gay marriage -- that's debatable -- but at least civil unions.