Why Southern Democrats are on the skids...

I will dedicate this blog post to the truth as to why Southern Democrats are on the skids.  It has all to do with the miraculous cloaking of so many leftover Dixiecrats in many positions of these state parties. Like YouTube sensation, Cadillac Kimberly said, "I don't go IN on anybody.  If I was going IN then I would put on a Teflon vest.  I speak the truth".

Most Southern white Democratic politicos aren't shit. It started with the American Civil Right Movement and the fight for equal rights, liberties, and protections for people of color (non-whites) under the law.  Most Southern states until the 1970s were dominated by Democrats.  Due to the Democratic party history of aligning itself with the New Deal programs championed by Franklin D. Roosevelt that benefited a great deal since it provided electricity and other modern amenities that others in the Northeast and Midwest had for a couple of decades.  However, this whole allowing "others" equal treatment and rights just didn't (and still doesn't sit well with most white Southerners).  These voters are called a love term known as Dixiecrats.  Oh yeah, don't let the dissolution of the "party" fool you at all, they still exist but are more covert about their ways...

In the South, many state Deep Southern Democratic parties like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Georgia have coddled these type of voters with "Yellow Dog", "Blue Dog", or just plain conservative Democrats to conserve their partisan majority of their state legislatures.  This was at the advantage of productive socially progressive and many times fiscally sound decisions to better their respective states.  However, by the "1994 Wave" in states like Georgia, Democrats lost both houses of state legislature due to this persistent of coddling of a group of voters in areas where you know the white voters will associate Democrat label to "bettering others over them".   Now this "wave" has finally come to Alabama in form the same occurring nearly 15 years after neighboring Georgia.

In both states cases, the state Democratic party leadership has spent so much political capital trying to keep Democrats whom would turn on their own in a heartbeat in their ranks.  Now as a political independent, I'm all for fighting for your constituency, but there is a thin line between being a champion of the people and a selfish bastard. The recent episodes in Alabama and Georgia has shown that these types can play-pretend to care about the people but still get away for bloody murder in a gerrymandered or racially imbalanced district.

Many of these types are the latter because the now curious case of soon-to-be former Florida congressman, Alan Grayson, stood to the very end as a champion of the people and socially progressive leader although a number of the foolish asses in Florida's 8th congressional district that will listen to the sound of water boiling and think it's a platform.  (Interesting side note, FL-8 is a district that includes the eastern and northern portions of the city of Orlando, which are both predominately white, whereas the western side and more racially diverse side of the city is in another district.  This is all while the majority of FL-8 is west of the city of Orlando itself.  Another case of gerrymandering...)

What needs occur from here on out is Democrats realize that any white politico that spends more time basically speaking in cues about blocking social progress especially those that benefit non-whites and lower class shouldn't be trusted.  It seems more like these types have a demographic, mostly white males over age 50 years.  That can be traced back to the fact that they were born during or prior to the Civil Rights Movement and doesn't seem to have actual respect for the rights of those different than themselves.  It's time for them to take out the trash and make sure it doesn't stick around for more issues.

Oh yeah, let's not confuse these types with moderate Democrats, whom will actually support socially progressive stance, but show resistance to somethings on fiscally sound grounds.  Those types aren't a part of the problem because when push comes to shove involving social progress they tend to be on the right side of history.