In the latest Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll, please note the regional breakdown:
Obviously this isn't surprising, but it is disheartening. We know the race is close, but it's close only because of the South. If the South were a separate country, Obama would be winning handily.
Then again, if the South were a separate country, the Republican Party here in America might be able to choose a relatively sane presidential nominee, one who wasn't constantly warning of the (secular and/or religious) apocalypse, either sincerely or opportunistically. Or, perhaps, there's another possibility: both parties here in America might be forced into a fearful jingoism, as a result of having that crazy Southistan on our border. I'm not sure, but I continue to be sorry that we'll never find out what it would be like.
Because it ended slavery.
ReplyDeleteNot to defend the South, but almost 1 in 6 people in Ohio think Mitt Romney was responsible for killing Osama bin Laden.
ReplyDeleteTHAT is FOX/Rush stupid!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/10/do-15-of-ohio-republicans-think-romney-killed-bin-laden-probably-not/
I'm sure some of that is out of spite towards pollers. But still...
As for the South, Sherman should have burned the whole place to the ground, hung the traitors, and salted the earth.
That would be like having 2 Mexicos.
ReplyDeleteAs a native of the area (if Tx is counted as part of the south, always a contentious proposition), I can say no more than this in defense: had the south been depopulated after the "late unpleasantness" in the 1860's, the north might have been doomed to blandness, culinary and musical - potatoes & Lawrence Welk. Probably would have been worth the risk, though, all in all.
ReplyDeleteCanada, in other words.
ReplyDeleteI can't defend the mouth breathers down here, but there are a few of us trying to swim against the tsunami of ignorance...
ReplyDeleteJust look at the great bills that were passed (land grant universities, the homestead act, and the transcontinental railroad, for example) right after the South seceded.
ReplyDeleteThere would still be slavery in the Americas. And elsewhere, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteWell, for my part, if the South decided to secede (again), I'd be inclined to let them. Give 'em a hearty handshake and a quite sincere "Good luck to you, bud." Seriously, I want a different sort of country than they do, and I'm tired of fighting with people who do not care about facts, science, reality or even pragmatic solutions to problems. It's a sad thing to contemplate breaking up this country, but when a large section of the populace is willing, even anxious, to block progress and is unwilling to compromise in any way, why the heck should the rest of us keep trying to work with them?
ReplyDelete