« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Appalachia Will Secede If Obama Wins
MSM has tried to downplay aspects of race in the Primary results in PA, OH, WVA, and KY. In reality, it is clear that race played a role in the vote for many voters in the region.
If You Tube interviews are an indication, many citizens in Appalachia will just never accept an African-American President. These voters will revolt.
The Appalachian revolutionaries will be joined by White Supremacists from around the country along with members of closed communities like the one in Texas who want men to be free to marry 12 and 14 year olds.
Just as the MSM was taken by surprise by the militia group mentality that led to the Oklahoma City bombings, they are missing possible racial anger and frustration building in the residents of the region. An Obama Presidency would be the tipping point.
Hopefully, the crack Department Of Homeland Security is on top of the issue.
Comments (13)
If they chose to secede, would you really want to stop them? (Yeah, I know they have coal, but I don't like that as a means towards energy independence, anyways.)
May 30, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually had similar thoughts about the Red States after GW was re-elected. The Blue States had higher education levels, marriage rates, income levels, etc. Blue States also paid through taxes for many of the government projects in Red states. :)
May 30, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose the only sad thing would be those blue cities in the red states. Speaking as a resident of a blue city in a red state, we don't want to be left behind! (Similarly, I suppose it's not nice to leave behind our Democratic brethren who for whatever reason choose to live in red cities or other red regions.)
Of course, my state (Virginia) has a decent chance of turning blue this year.
May 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
We'll negotiate for an access corridor then we'll airlift supplies to you.
May 30, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hang on Ben. Lattes, Priuses, and Arugula are on their way!
May 30, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are bigots in every state who would never vote for anyone besides a Caucasian male.
There are also many progressive folks in Appalachia, very many of whom voted for either a woman or African American candidate in a number of democratic primaries.
Bigotry comes in very many varieties, including regional stereotyping.
May 30, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will reach out to those who are not able to cast a vote for an African-American. However if we take WVA for example where 70% do not have college educations, the state is 3.5% Black and people telegraph dislike for "others", there will be a problem overcoming the bias.
Attacking this type racial bias will require a regional approach to address their specific issues. The worst thing that could be done is to pretend that a problem does not exist in that sliver of the country.
Sen Byrd of WVA went through his own transformation, going from a Klan Kleagle (recruiter) to having an 85% rating from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund on Civil Rights legislation. Transformation is possible. Sen Byrd had to confront his own demons before the process could occur. But to do that, he had to admit that there was a problem.
The solution will not be an "in-your-face you racist pig" approach, but showing that an African-American Democratic President does care about their issues. Again the percentage of bigots in the corridor makes a regional approach necessary.
May 30, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the class distinctions are perhaps more important to most folks in Appalachia than are racial distinctions. Appalachia is, and has been historically, one the USA's poorest areas (along with Native American communities) and the area and its people have been the subject of exploitation by some of the country's richest folks. It's been so since the founding of the nation.
Remember, the Whiskey Rebellion? Congress, composed primarily of aristocrats of the richer coastal areas of the nation, had borrowed $5 million from France (20% of which was raked off by the fellow who arranged the loan)to fund the revolution aimed at relieving their British tax burden, imposed to pay for the British forces stationed in the USA to protect the colonists from the French.
To repay the French debt a whiskey tax was imposed, which taxed the smaller producers at a lower rate per unit than the larger producers. The Appalachian farmers, who found it more economical to ship their corn harvest East in liquid form, refused to pay the tax. Gen. Washington amassed a force larger than the revolutionary army under his command and head West to force the Appalachians to pay their taxes, which they, of course, did.
Now days it's the coal companies and other monied interests sticking it to the Appalachians.
May 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
The African-Americans living in WVA may have a very
different take on the issue of race vs class. The limited views that I have seen suggests that the racial divide is significant.
May 30, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama hasn't lost faith in the "Appalachia" community, so why should we? I know that just tossing this region into the anachronistic dust-bin is the politically convenient thing to do, but the Obama campaign has never taken that route. Its always been about 50 States and reaching out to everybody.
As bad as Obama got lambasted for the "bitter" comments, he was spot on. He knows what the cause of the discontent is in these regions and I am positive that he has a plan to reach out to them and get them on his side.
After all, isn't that what he does best?
May 30, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much time will Sen. Clinton spend in these states endorsing Obama?
May 30, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good riddance it seems to me... why should we permit a minority of neaderthals to drag the country into the gutter? I am sure that Iran would welcome these racist bigots.
May 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not in the least surprised to see the amount of vitriol and ignorance of the posters with regard to people from Appalachia. It appears the elitist mentality, however unjustified, cannot be separated from cultural hatred.
Compare the educational levels, unemployment and poverty of many citizens of Appalachia with those of inner cities, and you have striking parallels; yet, no one dares refer to the latter in prejudicial terms for fear of accusations of racism. It seems hatred is only a family value when directed at underprivileged white Southerners by elitist open-minded, politically-correct and socially sensitive liberals,
With regard to the rejection of Obama as a potential leader of the free world, this is far from "racism." It it not the color of a man's skin, or the fact that Obama is biracial; it is a matter of Obama's extreme socialist politics. A strong conservative who happened to be black would be welcomed by the vast majority of whites in the South, yes, including Appalachia.
To ignore the real Obama - his appalling lack of experience, his liberal voting record (when he hasn't voted merely "present"), his highly questionable associates and business dealings - is extremely irresponsible. Simply put, the Global Village Idiots are more than willing to destroy the United States to achieve their socialist goals. In fact, for socialism to exist in America, the very foundation of the United States - individual liberty - must simply be done away with.
Regardless of the current interpretation of racism as being whatever one wishes it to be if the accusation serves ones purpose, racism is the belief that one race is somehow inherently superior to another. Would it then be "racist" when blacks who call themselves conservative or moderate support Obama simply because he is "black"? Or that so many white, if honest, would admit that Obama's greatest appeal to them is his being one-half African-American? This can easily be observed by blacks seeking to "make history," and whites proclaiming "we need a black president." Yet, in the former case, no one cares to think of the state of this nation once history is made and the confetti is swept up. In the latter, America does not "need" to elect a president simply on the basis of race or gender; the US needs to elect a president who is able to defend the Constitution as written, appoint judges who understand that it is their responsibility to read the law and not create the law, and defend the People of the United States from threats domestic and foreign. A president who understand that the power was always intended to be in the hands of the People.
Such a president, regardless of race or gender, would be overwhelmingly supported throughout the United States.
Yes, even in Appalachia.
September 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment