dagblog - Comments for "What’s eating Appalachia?"

Ouch, no, that one just got

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:06:15 +0000

In reply to Do you deliberately misspell

Ouch, no, that one just got away from me. Ca-li-gu-la. Fingers, don't fail me now...

It does behoove us to

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:03:11 +0000

It does behoove us to remember acts done from eminent domain and federal overreach when trying to understand the locals - if Hatfield & McCoys lasted generations, some mine collapses and other acts might stick in the craw too. (Ruby Ridge a long way away, but certainly seemed unnecessary, and a typical revenuers vs. 'shiners type confrontation that ended bad)

I was going to spare you my

EmmaZahn — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:41:43 +0000

In reply to Still, even if it was the

I was going to spare you my thoughts about the longtime anti-Fed culture in Appalachia vis-a-vis moonshiners vs "revenuers," but I will admit having them, only because I nixed them myself. It all depends on what the Feds do--see, for instance, the Tenessee Valley Authority.

Ah, yes, whiskey. Long memories in parts of Appalachia over liquor laws. However, I would think the coal-mining regions have different experiences with both private and public enterprises that affected them. The Tennessee Valley is much further south. Like the local lakes created around the same time, it still irks those who think their land was taken unfairly but it benefited many more.

But if you all want to just

Ramona — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:36:23 +0000

In reply to Of course there was no one

But if you all want to just contend there's 100% happiness in Shangri-La, that the only dissenters must be from the dark land of Mordor, have at it.

Bit of a stretch, isn't it, just to keep the rant going? Who ever said any such thing?

Still, even if it was the

artappraiser — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:26:48 +0000

In reply to Notice how this article and

Still, even if it was the case that it was GOP voters, I think the author is astute to pick this out to ruminate about (he admits it is academic because Obama is not going to win WV anyways,) as his main conclusion is the last sentence: if Mr Judd can bring almost half of these Democrats along, how many can Mitt Romney muster?

It took me back to thinking about strong preferences for Hillary Clinton over Obama in 2008 primaries in Appalachia.

And how already the political campaigns are focusing on Ohio, Ohio, Ohio.

And how the Obama campaign seems to be working mightily to make sure Romney is branded as a Richie Rich member of the elite, how so far that almost seems to be their main focus (not to mention a past governor of a very Yankee state!)

And how during the 1992 primaries, so many were saying Bill Clinton's the one, because despite his many downsides, he also understands and can communicate to the "good old boys" and girls of the south. And how even further back in time, it was said that Jimmy Carter was the one, for similar reasons, while he's a nerd, he's also a farmer and just look at his brother Billy and his sister Ruth.

And then I got to thinking about race, and I wondered if this type of registered Dem voter (in places where, for example, quoting "Lexington": Democrats have survived in state government only by disavowing the national party, as Messrs Manchin and Tomblin have) hates Nancy Pelosi as much as Barack Obama.

And I got to wondering if this type of Dem voter might crossover and vote for Herman Cain, son of Georgia, if he were the GOP nominee, despite the color of his skin. And I admit I thought: I suspect many of this type of Dem voter found Cain very appealing.

And hence the main campaign battle so far is over how Mitt Romney is perceived.

P.S. I was going to spare you my thoughts about the longtime anti-Fed culture in Appalachia vis-a-vis moonshiners vs "revenuers," but I will admit having them, only because I nixed them myself. It all depends on what the Feds do--see, for instance, the Tenessee Valley Authority.

Do you deliberately misspell

EmmaZahn — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:26:27 +0000

In reply to Yes, it's a

Do you deliberately misspell classical names?

FWIW, the mischief of crossover voting can sometimes go wrong, very, very wrong:

The Georgia gubernatorial election of 1966 was held on November 8. After an election that exposed divisions within the Georgia Democratic Party (giving the Georgia Republican Party a shot at the Governor's Mansion for the first time in the twentieth century), segregationist Democrat Lester Maddox was elected Governor of Georgia by the Georgia General Assembly. The race also brought future President Jimmy Carter to statewide prominence for the first time.

Of course there was no one

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:15:02 +0000

In reply to So once again. . .I'm not

Of course there was no one else.

Democrats have been insistent that no one primary Obama.

So there's pent-up discontent, and Judd just happened to do what he does around the country - get himself on a ballot. "They" didn't choose him - he's done this in Idaho and wherever - he's in jail, he's got a lot of time on his hands, he files paperwork and he's on.

Blaming it on Republicans again misses the point - a lot of Democrats are unhappy, and the candidate is not addressing those concerns.

But if you all want to just contend there's 100% happiness in Shangri-La, that the only dissenters must be from the dark land of Mordor, have at it.

So once again. . .I'm not

Ramona — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:00:15 +0000

In reply to They're pissed off at an

So once again. . .I'm not asking you for the reasons why they would vote against Obama. I'm asking you why you think they voted for a man destined to spend the next 17 years in a Texas prison? Was there no one else? What kind of message did that send? Or, as Emma suggests, were the Republican mischief makers out and about?

Seems you just want to spew the Hate Obama talking points without looking at the rest of the story. The talking points we know. The rest of the story, why they chose that particular candidate, is much more interesting--and, unlike the Obama TPs, hasn't yet been told.

Well, there are those who

Elusive Trope — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:59:38 +0000

In reply to Yawn. How about Obama bring

Well, there are those who suffer the consequences of racism who might not want to wait until we're bored stiff. Like it or not, a presidential race is one of the main event in the news media so when social issues like racism pop up, they will get attention because they are related to the main event. Steroids wouldn't be a issue in Congress if it was only impacted bicycle racing.

Of course, voters should not feel obligated to follow party lines. But it is also the voters responsibility as a good citizen to make their choices based on reason and their sense of values. If their decision is being driven wholly or in part by racism, then, according to my values, they are not being good citizens and should be pointed out as a such.

The point of intense racism as a factor (beyond it just being a bad thing), is that it means that there is nothing Obama could do in order to convince them to vote for him. Of course, we would need to have the parallel universe with the Obama candidate of 2012 running - whose administration did everything exactly as Obama's did, the only difference being the candidate is white - to ever know just who is making their choice based primarily or solely on race.

Finally, when Obama does put up the window-dressing to act like he cares, as with the war on drugs, he's bashed for pandering. When he doesn't put the window-dressing up, he bashed for being dicky. Probably Obama's team realizes that in a world dominated by coal, and seeing Obama isn't going to be the darling of the coal industry and those dependent on it (even though he isn't the worse president they can imagine), his energies are best spent elsewhere. In the world of national politics, if someone is going to think you're dicky no matter what, there isn't much a point in trying to get them to dislike you a little less.

They're pissed off at an

Anonymous PP — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:49:24 +0000

In reply to So the fact that they chose a

They're pissed off at an asshole who told them they were bitter and clinging to guns and religion, who's ignored them except to hurt their 1 major industry - coal/West Virginia, coal/West Virginia, get it?

Some politicians might consider damage control, but this one never feels need to smooth over hurt feelings.

I went skiing one time in West Virginia - the slope was an iced up coal chute. Charming conditions.