For many topics - including politicians - the Wikipedia article is already at or near the top search return.
I would suggest two things with Google bombing.
First, pick an article other than the Wikipedia article. This way a particularly damning article and the Wikipedia article will both show up near the top in search returns.
Second, pick an article which has something damning in the title. Getting a search engine return titled "George Allen Under Fire for Racist Comments" would be the ideal - much preferable to an article titled "George Allen (U.S. Politician)" coming up near the top even if the content of the article is mostly critical. Americans, sadly, tend to thrive on sound bites.
"Who is "you" in this case. I have never heard Democrats disrespect southern culture, even if they are not a part of this culture themselves."
Then you must have missed Kovie's posts above. I already got into it with this person on another thread and see no point in continuing, but if you read his/her posts it is obvious that they believe NASCAR, pickup trucks, and Southern culture in general are inherently racist sexist and Republican. Which is absurd on the face of it. You must have also missed Matt Stoller's post that started this thread - where he uses Webb's poll numbers to YET AGAIN take a gratuitous potshot at Dave "Mudcat" Saunders and his suggestion that Democrats had better start showing some more respect for Southern culture if we seriously hope to compete there again.
Showing some respect for Southern culture does not have anything to do with adopting the Republican platform or "pandering", whatever that is. The two are completely separable. To suggest otherwise is very, very offensive and bigoted.
Rick Renzi (R-"AZ") should be investigated along those same lines. Is anyone else aware that his primary residence is in Fairfax, Virginia and has been for about 3 decades? He doesn't even own a house in the Arizona district he represents. He made a down payment on such house in Flagstaff before the 2002 election, and never moved in, which the bank foreclosed on because he never made payments. The house was only used by his 2002 campaign staff for their late night parties. He also owns a ranch in Arizona - in the 8th district, not the 1st. Currently he has no claim at all to residency in AZ-1.
"So you're ok with the "hard-drinking, pickup truck-driving, ass-kicking, bar-fighting, indoor hat-wearing, faux cowboy, good 'ole boy image" image that people like Keith do their best to glamorize and which millions seems to want to emulate, and don't see a connection between this image and support for phony tough guy idiots like Bush?"
There is no connection whatsoever between this image and support for Bush. And yes, I'm perfectly ok with this image.
What I'm not okay with is the Republican strategists trying to appropriate this image, for example their patently transparent misuse of terms like "ranger" and "pioneer" for their donors, nor am I okay with the handful of "progressives" who PLAY RIGHT INTO THE REPUBLICANS' FREAKING HANDS by ceding the rural white working class culture, symbols, and identity to the Republicans. Republicans are and have always been the party of the very privileged and rich.
Does believing that we had it better in this country back when the New Deal policies of FDR and Truman were settled national consensus and not under attack; when we had a Fairness Doctrine preventing the extremist right wing from gaining more than token influence in the media; when 40% of the workplace had union representation and not 9%; and when a single entry level job was enough to support home ownership for a married couple with a kid, means living in the "mythic past"? I have to wonder. Blanket rejection of the past and loving change for the sake of change are the dogma of the Virginia Postrel, Julian Simon, and John Stossel wing of libertarianism, not liberalism.
"there are an enormous number of basically stupid and unsophisticated people in the south who have very little awareness of what's going on in the country or world"
There is also an enormous number of basically stupid and unsophisticated people on the east and west coasts. I ran into plenty of them in Seattle, Chicago, and Phoenix. And in Arcata, Missoula, Lawrence, and Moab. And in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New Jersey. The south is no exception. Neither is any other region.
"I'm tired of the desire of some Dems to "make nice" and try to pander to groups with whom we have almost nothing in common"
And I'm tired of making nice and pandering to groups with which I have almost nothing in common - i.e. are not working class but are upper middle class elitists of either the urban ironic hipster variety or the exurban SUV-and-trophy-home variety.
Also, did Toby Keith ever endorse Bush? What I saw was an attempt by the Bushies to get him to endorse Bush and he refused, saying "it may come as a surprise, but I'm a Democrat". He did not say he supported Kerry either but I never heard anything about him endorsing Bush.
"hard-drinking, pickup truck-driving, ass-kicking, bar-fighting, indoor hat-wearing, faux cowboy, good 'ole boy image"
Latte-drinking, New York Times reading, Birkenstock wearing, body-piercing, vegetarian freak show.
Sigh. Bigotry knows no bounds. Some self-styled "progressives" are among the worst offenders.
I'm most concerned how this merger will affect Cingular's status as a union company. Right now, Cingular is the most pro-union of the wireless companies and essentially recognizes union representation on a card check basis. Verizon is the most anti-union wireless company.
My understanding is this merger brings Cingular and Verizon under the same ownership. Is this an opportunity, a threat, or some of both?
Except for the anti-choice stuff, most of those positions sound perfectly ok to me and certainly in no way incompatible with traditional liberalism of the New Deal-FDR-Truman variety. Thanks for the tips - I'm off now to add a few more names to my ActBlue page.
"And note to all you non-redneck, non-racist, non-retarded, decent and progressive southerners, of whom I realize that there are well more than a few (may the late Ann Richards' memory be blessed). I realize that you exist, are not at all silent and passive, and have been and are doing your best to move the south and rest of the country forward, and fight injustice, prejudice and ignorance. I am, of course, not referring to you, but to those of your friends, neighbors, relatives and colleagues who fit the above description. I'm sure that you're well aware of them, and immensely frustrated with and likely embarrassed by them."
No, for the life of me I am not well aware of anybody fitting the stereotype you speak of.
Toby Keith is a Democrat. F-150s are union-made, unlike many of those trendoid SUVs and small cars driven by urbanite hipsters and soccer/safety moms.
That's not how I remember it. Republicans threw him off track. Specefically over gays in the military and health care. Religious Right special interest groups, Limbaugh, and local Limbaugh wannabees drummed up big protests, call-in and blast-faxing campaigns and so on that caught Clinton off guard. I don't think he was expecting that kind of opposition. He completely changed course and spent the rest of his administration pushing things which he knew the Republican base was divided enough over that they wouldn't be able to successfully raise such a stink - such as NAFTA, Brady Bill, the Clipper Chip, Telecommunications Act, DMCA and so on.
Back when the Fairness Doctrine was in place, the media's dominant point of view was the national consensus view: New Deal liberalism. The left (read: those outside of the bounds articulated by Arthur Schlesinger's book "The Vital Center", such as Marxists) did not get airtime, but neither did extreme conservatives such as the Birchers or the Dominionist Christian right.
I would expect the same thing today if it were reinstated. Ugly partisan politics would largely disappear from the broadcast media.
The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC regulation which applied only to broadcast media: radio and TV. It did not apply to newspapers, and wouldn't apply to the Internet either since the Internet is not under FCC licensing or regulation.
Some hardcore progressives might not like the idea of a national consensus centrist-liberal view which excludes those too far to the left dominating on radio and TV. I would personally welcome a return to those days.
Especially not Davis, whose main issues are labor, bringing back good paying manufacturing jobs, and trade, where he is to the left of most Democrats.
I recall seeing similar attacks on MyDD (not from you) aimed at Tammy Duckworth because she ran an ad saying she opposes amnesty for illegal aliens. Geez, how much ideological purity do we want? Let's get something straight. Support for illegal immigration is the domain of the loony Marxist/anarchist extreme left and the anti-union Chamber of Commerce right. It is not a liberal, Democratic position. I have no sympathy for those who think they have some kind of "right" to jump ahead of the line in front of those who went through all the hoops to move here legally. Nor for those who would enable them or defend them.
I'm convinced it has to be something that will give American labor a jump-start and reunionize the workplaces, with the big box stores like Target, Wal Mart and Home Depot topping the list of places to unionize.
This is the only way to ensure the rebuilding of a base of solid Democatic support. The Republicans have such a base in the evangelical churches. We have nothing comparable. We used to, in both organized labor and in the old Democratic machines in the big northern cities and in the south. The machines of course were problematic. Reviving organized labor is the answer.
Reviving organized labor would also have the effects of: (1) creating a strong and unified base that will put a check on globalization, ensure against any further expansion of "free" trade agreements, put a check on the mass influx of cheap junk from China now being dumped on the world markets, and roll back NAFTA and the WTO. (2) This in turn will spur the rebuilding of the American manufacturing base and our infrastructure. (3) Livable wages. As more workplaces become unionized, even non-union employers will be forced to pay higher wages in order to compete with union jobs for labor. This will exert an overall upward push on wages. Minimum wages will begin to rise again in response, just as they did during the mid 20th century when much of the U.S. economy was unionized.
What is the one thing we can do that will enable employees to unionize again? What will accomplish the automatic repeal of all state "right to work" laws, stop employers from holding captive anti-union meetings and other union-busting activity, render the recent NLRB decision defining "supervisors" null and void, etc.? What is the "one ring" that will bring the whole anti-union Mordor crashing down on itself?
Easy. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.
When Taft-Hartley goes, the entire rest of the anti-union package will fall like dominoes.