Pulaski

Google <Dixiecrat>.

Over the past 150 years strange things have happened to American politics, from the time when the Republicans were the party of the rich carpet-baggers in New England and the Dems were the party of the poor south. Things have pretty much flipped around 180°.

As recently as the 1960's there was a majority of socially conservative Dems in the south who had much more in common with the bigoted right wing of the Republican party than with anything recognisably "Democrat" (as we understand the party today) in flavour. As such those that joined the Democrat party followed on the coat tails of those very conservative Democrats and the Dems ran NC for over a century, until just two years ago. Jesse Helms, who was much reviled for his bigotry actually first entered Congress as a Democrat. ..... And on personal level Mrs P's father would pass pretty much any test or investigation into his thoughts and opinions as a solid Republican from The South, but insists he is a Democrat, and usually votes accordingly.

Yorkieabroad

It just pisses me off that everything has all become so negative. It all revolves around how the other side have got it wrong, rather than how "our" side will make it better (other than undoing the mistakes of the previous administraiton). And that's not just the twonks here, either.

Michael

Until FDR, blacks (where they were allowed to vote) voted almost exclusively republican but switched to the democratic party when FDR tried to implement WPA programs that accepted both whites and blacks and in the 1960s, the republican party was almost 100% fiscal conservatives with little affiliation to other groups. In fact if it wasn't for the republicans of the 1960s, the civil rights act would have never passed but then the republicans saw an opportunity and welcomed the segregationist view, religion, anti abortion, and any other things (except the social programs) that the Dixicrats were in favor of.

It was the Dixicrats that changed the republican party and not the other way around. Some of the biggest spenders on government programs were the Dixicrats and one of them was George Wallace.

Pulaski

I know that to be the case, but it still makes my head spin thinking about it. Unless/until you understand what happened (the "why" is what makes my head spin) it is hard to understand how US politics came to be so utterly dysfunctional.

Michael

If the US was a parliamentary system, the Dixicrats would have spun off into it's own party and became a king maker as to who they would coalition with to form a government. But with the US system, they would only be a regional party and never get to the presidency and would likely leave the democrats in power of the presidency for 100s of years.

Mrs Danvers

I'm not sure what type of legislation either party could pass that would be in the interests of the people who bankroll them and the masses who vote for them. Hence the issues about abortion, immigrants and ebola which really don't affect most people but can raise ire if enough emphasis can be put on them.

So it is all a shouting match between two parties saying the other is crap. I barely voted for anyone because I wanted them to win. I just really didn't want their opponent to win.

FlaviusAetius

I suspect that after the new Republicans take office in January they will pass a lot of legislation that will end up on Obama's desk. The reason nothing has been done since 2011 is that Harry Reid has allowed no bill of substance to come to a vote in order to avoid having members of his caucus having to take an embarrassing vote - or to have a popular-looking bill come to Obama's desk that he would veto.

The Republicans have announced a number of bills that they would like to get out early next year. Among these bills is one to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and another has to do with tax reform to allow repatriation of some $2 Trillion in overseas profits held by US Corporations, without punitive taxation. If a good portion of that money comes back, it should provide a positive stimulation to the US economy. Since Harry Reid will no longer be able to road block everything, we may actually see some progress.

If Obama does veto some popular legislation for ideological reasons, the Republicans would be wise to bring those bills up for override. This would split Dem Senators, especially those who might be vulnerable in 2016. To override his veto, only about 8 - 11 Dem Senators would have to vote in favour, and 47 Dem congressmen - not unthinkable, given the level of Obama's popularity. If he were to lose a couple of override votes, he would have to choose his battles with great care if he were to avoid becoming almost entirely irrelevant for the balance of his tenure.

Michael

I can't imagine why many Americans would want the Keystone XL pipeline. It creates about 20,000 jobs for two years (about 3 days of job creation that were created during the last year) and after that maybe 100 jobs or so to maintain it. Farmers don't want it even though they get paid a small amount for "right of way", environmentalists don't want it since it cuts through Montana and Wyoming especially since it is tar sands and not crude which is much worst when a spill occurs, it'll make cleaning up gulf port spills much more difficult, it's sole purpose is to export Canadian oil, it will raise the price of Canadian oil to the American market, and for the next 50+ years there will be a 2,000 mile ugly pipeline that that infrastructure will have to be built around increasing costs. If you own shares of some oil or pipeline company, it may be beneficial to you.

If there was no other way of getting Canadian oil to the international market, I'd be in favor of helping out our friends to the north but they could easily build a 600 mile pipeline through British Columbia but the problem is that the British Columbian government and residents have been opposing that pipeline for over 10 years since it was first proposed due to the worry of environmental damage and very few jobs. Finally last year Ottawa approved plan for the pipeline but put 207 additional conditions but now the cost may be much more than oil company pipeline companies are willing to pay. British Columbia is still fighting the pipeline and are drawing up additional conditions. British Columbia is so concerned about an oil spill in the bay that is 1/10th size of the Exxon Valdez that it would make the cleanup after the Exxon Valdez seem like child's play. They saw what the small Santa Barbra spill did to about 200 miles of the California coast in 1969 and are very worried that a similar spill in the large confined bay would be vastly worst. I suspect it will be at least another 10 years before they'll start construction if ever.

I guess for a pittance, very little benefit, a high probability of environmental damage, and a 50+ year problem, America can be Canada's junk yard and that that seems to be ok with some America even though British Columbia doesn't want to become a junkyard.

The democrats have not opposed fracking since it creates a lot of American jobs and reduces dependency on foreign oil and is willing to accept the environmental damage in the hope that economy will be stronger and be able to pay for potential environmental damage. Even in California, Jerry Brown (D-GOV) is in favor of fracking even though California is an earthquake zone and fracking causes earthquakes. If they can get the oil out of the Monterrey Basin, 2.5 million created California jobs is a risk that Brown is willing to take.

sir_eccles

The question should be why wouldn't you want an oil pipeline in your backyard. You even get free oil when it breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Mayflower_oil_spill

Mrs Danvers

Oh Flavius. I think you just made the point I was trying to make. Those bills aren't the first thing the average voter wants passed. Im off to the bacon thread.

Michael

I didn't think about it that way.

They are still using those tar sands oil in Arkansas after a small spill over two years ago since it's still in peoples lawns.

ExxonMobil Arkansas Tar Sands Spill Reignites Keystone XL Debate | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

scrubbedexpat091

They are now thinking of taking the pipeline to the maritime provinces somewhere from Alberta and apparently refine it and then export it, but who knows what will actually happen.

But BC will fight it tooth and nail, and it will be a brutal fight, nobody want's it in BC, many Native Bands don't want it, and has to go through their land, so they will find it tooth and nail.

The US doesn't want it.

Best conclusion is to send it to the eastern Atlantic provinces to get it to market.

Michael

That is what pipeline companies are also proposing but they got to go though a lot of provinces to get it there and I doubt the French Canadians will be too happy about having a pipeline running through Quebec. They could possibly stop at the Great Lakes but then it will be virtually impossible to get a small tanker let alone a super tanker through the Eire Canal. I suppose they could setup refineries on the Great Lakes and build a gasoline pipeline to the east coast and export gasoline but if an tar sands spill occurs into the Great Lakes, that's worst than an ocean spill.

Even if they can get a pipeline to the east coast, the North Atlantic is a dangerous place for supertankers. The French oil spill of 1978 wasn't even caused by the bad weather of the North Atlantic but the ship just ran aground.

Michael

This was a very small 10 to 30 barrels of tar sands in Michigan. Imagine what a supertanker spill of 3 million or more barrels would look like.

BP Lake Michigan Oil Spill: Did Tar Sands Spill into the Great Lake? | DeSmogBlog

RoadWarriorFromLP

The great thing about Keystone is that it would raise the price of gasoline for Midwesterners.

The GOP would then get to blame the president for the higher fuel prices, making it a win-win for the Republicans.