with just 49 days to go until the 2008 presidential and general election, things are getting downright bile-filled out in the ether. democrats accuse republicans of lying. republicans accuse democrats of lying. independents are just trying to figure out who will best represent them in the coming four years.
although it MAY be anecdotal, there is some indication that the conservatives in this country are getting motivated for mccain/palin. i'm talking not merely "get drunk and vote for mccain", but actually working the phones, pounding the pavements and hammering on the keys - keyboards that is - to rally the country to elect john and sarah.
we have all seen the trend in recent days of the independents moving away from obama into camp mccain. but while this is bad new for obama, in and of itself, it is not all good news for mccain. you see, mccain can't win without the enthusiastic advocation of the conservatives and based on recent trending, it appears he's getting just that.
my regular readers - if i have any - surely know how i feel about polls and how worthwhile they are. they're not. it's fun to watch them, but i'm not really writing about the polls, but rather about the atmosphere in the country right now.
my blogging acquaintance, mustang, put up this poston friday. he's easily one of the most articulate bloggers i've read and puts a great many "real" reporters to shame as well. this is an article on "political equanimity" and he's spot on in his analysis:
"Asked when American politics started getting nasty, Rudy Giuliani opined that it began during the 2000 elections. I disagree. I think it began during the Federalist Debates after the start of the Constitutional Convention. My point is Americans have always disagreed with one another along an entire range of issues that affect them personally. One-third of our colonial forefathers were completely disengaged from the revolution, but of course, there was a risk to sitting along the sidelines, too. There still is."
there's more at mustang's place and it's well worth the read if you're so inclined. as i said, i believe he is spot on his this analysis. and it was this that got me thinking.
in my blog visits to mustang, brooke, z, defiant infidel, angel and others, i see messages of both hope for the future (primarily because they can now get behind mccain with the palin pick) and frustration. in the comments at many of these sites i see the twisting and vileness that we are also seeing with the political ads and the mainstream media, at large. the main charge by the liberals, based on the blogs and comments i've seen, is that the republican economic and other policies do not work for the people. that it is because of the republican policies that the country is in a downward spiral.
yes, the economy has slowed down, but it's not because of republican policies. if republican policies are so damaging, why is that the ten most poverty-ridden cities in the country are firmly in control of the democrats? and why is that the most poverty-ridden segments of our society are firmly in the camp of the democrats when it comes to voting? no seriously, i'd like an explanation for this. let's look at the charts, shall we?
in the latest "income, earnings, and poverty data from the 2007 american community survey" report (Download census_report_2007.pdf) from the u.s. census bureau, we learn that american indians (including alaskan natives) have the highest rate of poverty by segment of society, closely followed by blacks:
in that same report, we also learn about the ranking of each county and city (with more than 250,000 residents) in terms of percentage in poverty per capita:
i am not addressing the leanings of the political leanings of the counties specifically, although the bulk of the top 10 counties in regards to poverty have tended to be blue in the past two elections. however, let's look at the top 10 poverty-ridden cities on the list from the u.s. census bureau, shall we?
- detroit, michigan has a poverty rate of 33.8% (give or take 1.4%). this is more than 4% higher than cleveland, ohio. the current mayor pro-tem of detroit, ken cockrel, jr. is a democrat. he took over for the disgraced and indicted mayor of nearly six years, kwame kilpatrick (the youngest mayor in the history of detroit who also spoke at the 2004 dnc convention) this week and he is also a democrat. the last republican mayor in detroit, michigan? eugene van antwerp, who served from 01/06/1948-01/03/1950, was a republican.
- in cleveland, ohio, frank g. jackson, a democrat, is the current mayor. he took over in 2006 for jane l. campbell, also a democrat. the last time cleveland elected a republican mayor was, george v. voinovich in 1980. he served until 1989. the poverty rate in cleveland is 29.5%.
- buffalo, new york has not had a republican at the helm since stanley makowski was replaced by democrat james griffin on the first of january in 1978. the current mayor is bryan brown is a democrat; he was elected in 2005 and took office in 2006; he presides of a poverty rate of 28.7 (down from 29.1 in 2006).
- in el paso, texas, john cook took office nearly three years ago replacing his fellow democrat joe wardy. democrats have enjoyed control of this texas city since june of 2001 and have a current poverty percentage of 27.4.
- memphis, tennessee has been held by a single democrat, willie w. herenton is october of 1991. his tenure as the city's mayor has been marked with a great deal of controversy and corruption. the current poverty rate in memphis is 26.2%.
- with the exception of a few months in 1996 when republican willy gort as the acting mayor, miami, florida has only elected democrats to office since 1955. they currently enjoy a poverty rate of 25.2%.
- milwaukee, wisconsin has been solidly under democrat or socialist party control since republican sherburn m. becker left office in 1908. however, their solid standing with poverty at nearly a quarter of the city's population (24.4%) is nothing to brag about.
- in newark, new jersey the last republican mayor, ralph a. villani, left office in 1953 and was replaced by leo p. carlin and it's been led by democrats ever since. 23.9% is the current rate of poverty in this city.
- when democrat joseph s. clark became mayor of philadelphia, pa in 1952, he replaced the last republican mayor since seen in the city of brotherly love. bernard samuel left office on 07 january 1952 after serving for 11 years. the current mayor is presiding over a poverty rate of 23.8%.
- cincinnati, ohio has been under democrat or charterite control since 1971. since 1926 only two of the 30 mayors have been elected by the city's residents - the rest of them have been appointed by the city council. 23.5% of the residents of cincinnati are in poverty today.
it is also interesting to note that the breakdown of political control for even the ten highest poverty-ridden smaller cities is decidedly democrat as well:
in bloomington, indiana democrats have controlled the mayor's office since 1972. in camden, the list in complete, but the dems have controlled city hall since at least 1956. control of the city's government in brownsville has been with the democrats since at least 1991. in gainesville, fl democrats have had controll of the mayor's office for at least seven years. kalamazoo has been under the control of democrats since 1973. the democrats have been in control of flint michigan since 1975. in reading, pa, they have a past full of socialists and democrats and the dems have controlled the mayor's office for at least the past 10 years. the dems have controlled city hall in macon all the way back to 1954. in youngstown, oh, the current mayor is an "independent" with definite leftward leaning tendencies, other than that there have been democrats at the helm since 1978. and finally in pontiac city, mi, the current mayor is a democrat; it appears that the control of the dems goes back to 1967, but i am not 100% certain of that as the information is spotty.
isn't it interesting that the ten cities - large or small - with the highest rates of poverty per capita are run by democrats? how can the failed policies of the dems be blamed on the republicans when the facts bear information that is contrary?
just one last thing to leave you with. if the socialist policies of the left work so well to get people out of poverty, why is that the highest poverty levels fall in areas that are squarely in control of the democrats/socialists? is this really the direction we want to head with our country?
btw, if you like this post, please go vote for it here. thanks, y'all!