Something you thought you'd never need to read

"Which GOP front-runner is the least liberal?"

I really do wonder if the South will vote for a Mormon recent pro-life-convert, or a thrice-married serial adulterer who is not staunchly pro-life and supports gay marriage. I don't really care who they vote for on that side, to be honest. What I do wish is that Dems would win here (i.e., in South Carolina), but it just won't happen.

Why? Here's why: the religion gap and the education gap that we suffer in the South, and suffer horribly in South Carolina. As long as that gap exists, a party that makes sense to both sides of the divide simply cannot and will not exist. And, rather than closing, the gap is widening in education and religious disparity, as I point out regularly.

Today at our school, Charles T. Ferillo, the guy who was instrumental in getting the racist symbol of the Confederate flag moved from the SC Capitol Building [aside: Obama is against flying the confederate flag here, saying it belongs in a museum] and made the documentary The Corridor of Shame came to talk at our school. The film is about the problem with funding in poor, rural, minority-dominated South Carolina public schools. It's quite an eye-opener. You can watch it/download it free here at eTV. Issues like education and the confederate flag, imho, are not going to bring over moderates and sensible independents in enough numbers to outdo the fundamentalist social conservatives in the Bible Belt. I really think it's time for Dems to ignore the South and focus their efforts elsewhere. See an excerpt of Whistling Past Dixie below.

See:

White southerners used to be among the most economically liberal voters in America but are now among the most conservative. The South is America's most militaristic and least unionized region, and the powerful combination of race and religion create a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most statewide Democratic candidates and almost all Democratic presidential nominees.

Meanwhile, there are growing opportunities for Democrats to improve their electoral fortunes in other parts of the country, where demographic changes and political attitudes are more favorable to Democratic messages and messengers. Citizens in the Midwest have been decimated by globalization and are looking for economic salvation. In the Southwest where white and, most especially, Hispanic populations are booming, a strong platform on immigration reform and enforcement could divide the Republicans and put the region up for grabs. In parts of the Mountain West, Democrats can pair the lessons learned from Ross Perot's fiscal reform campaigns with an emphasis on land and water conservation to establish traction among disaffected libertarians and the millions of coastal transplants who either moved westward or bounced back eastward from California in search of open spaces and more affordable suburban lifestyles. If the Democrats can simultaneously expand and solidify their existing margins of control in the Northeast and Pacific Coast states -- specifically by targeting moderate Republicans for defeat, just as moderate Democrats in the South have been systematically terminated by the GOP -- the Democrats can build a national majority with no help from the South in presidential elections and little help from southern votes elsewhere down the ballot.

As I read this I smiled a little to myself; it is highly unlikely that this will happen, given the two Democratic frontrunners' penchants for pandering here in the South: Obama used a virulently anti-gay minister in SC and Hillary puts on an accent down here.

I wish they would whistle past Dixie (and my own doorstep) to secure the White House. Unfortunately, this wisdom hasn't sunk in yet.

Also, check out Polarized America (H/T: Paul Krugman) for amazing graphs showing the correlation of income inequality to political polarization.

Back to Obama, here's someone defending his mandates for health care coverage...and someone criticizing them.