I posted this in the story “No joy in Mudville”, but noticed that story has dropped off the front page. I am posting it as a blog so that perhaps those persons who engaged in ad hominem attackes there might want to see my response:

I don’t even know where to start in the face of all the personal attacks.

So I will say that I was pointing out the strategy that appears to have been used by both sides; if you go back and read my apparently offensive post you might see that I did not say that I thought this was a good idea, primarily because, based on personal experience, I do not think it was a good idea; what I set forth was my view of the reality of the way the parties work. And this is based on my observations while working at precinct and district levels in the Democratic Party and keeping my ears open to what people said.

Now, about the positions of WV and TN in the electoral college voting:

Since 1900, there have been 27 elections; WV voted Republican in 13 of those 27 elections. TN voted for the Republican candidate 12 times.

To make the comparison more on the modern era, which I have chosen arbitrarily as beginning in 1952, West Virginia has voted Republican in five out of 14 elections, while Tennessee has voted Republican in ten of the 14 elections.

I think it is inaccurate to say that WV votes pathologically Democratic, and it is safe to say that TN is basically a Republican state, having voted Republican more than two thirds of the time since 1952.

I submit to you the reason that Al Gore was not elected President in 2000 was as much a factor of the Republican majority here as it was the Democrats’ failure to recognize that TN was the ultimate swing state. They assumed, against the odds, in my opinion, that the Democratic candidate was a shoo-in just because it was his home state. There are many states that vote for one party at the state level and the other party at the national level. If you look closely, I believe you will find this true in North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado.

What I want to know is why, just because you disagree with me, so many of you have to make ad hominem attacks, accusing me of smoking some recreational drug, not thinking, “not being a pin-sharp thinker,” slinging BS, etc., etc.

I admit freely that I have, on occasion, questioned certain people’s thought processes, but those occasions have been where some person on the lunatic fringe has said something that is just so patently insane as to cause me to react viscerally. The vast majority of the time I am a civil, refined lady of indeterminate age; if you treat me with respect and dignity and attack my arguments rather than my person I will remain that way.

But I am not stupid, I think a lot (one of the advantages of advanced age meaning that period of time when the children have finally relocated permanently from my abode), I do not indulge in any recreational drugs stronger than the occasional glass of wine; I deeply resent those who feel that the best way to attack a person’s arguments, ideas, and positions is to attack the person espousing those views.

Churlpat — a plutarch by any name is still a plutarch

Comments are closed.