The last Repug President* that was born in the South was Ike.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

Kennedy was the last Dem not born in the South.



Chimp born in Connecticut.
Poppy born in Massachusetts.
Reagan born in Illinois.
Nixon born in California.
Ike born in Texas.



How come only Repugs can be carpetbaggers? I find this phenomena quite interesting. Obviously the Repugs have pulled the wool over someone's eyes. Anyone explain this for me?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

1. Never thought of it that way

but you're right, and even Ike was never thought of as a Southerner and certainly didn't sound like one.

In fact, a vague memory just stirred me to Google Eisenhower's biography, and sure enough, even though he was born in Texas, he spent most of his early years in Kansas.

If you add the vice-presidents, it's even more interesting:

Eisenhower's vp was Nixon.

Nixon's was Spiro Agnew (Maryland) followed by Ford (Michigan).

Wasn't Ford's vp Nelson Rockefeller (from New York?)

Reagan's was Bush Sr. (northeasterner + fake Texan)

Bush Sr.'s vp was Dan Quayle (Indiana).

Bush Jr. (northeasterner + fake Texan) has Cheney (Wyoming) as his vice-president.

So I guess the "you must have a Southerner on the ticket" applies only to Democrats, just like all the other rules that Republicans make up.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Time to rewrite some rules.

Methinks.

[Zomby Woof]

6. some history, and analysis

First, the nation's political party demographics began to shift during the 60's, when the Democrats finally abandoned the 'state's rights' corner of their platform and adopted civil rights. That explains why LBJ said he just "lost the Democrats for at least a generation in the south" when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (paraphrase). With their general opposition to civil rights growing in some kind of inverse proportion to the Democrats' support, the GOP took up 'state's rights', and with Nixon's 'southern strategy' in 1968, also adopted the racially codified "law & order" mantra.

Now for a few more points. The original poster said Eisenhower was a "southerner". Well, since he grew up in Kansas, he was never thought of as one in the public imagination, or in the media. That perception is important. Nowhere in the analysis leading up to both the 1952 and 1956 elections is there ANY reference to Eisenhower being "southern" to an degree that would convey that this was important. He was highly admired by people from both parties, because of his service in WW2. THAT, above all, trumped geography.

Also, Kennedy had a southerner on his ticket, LBJ. Actually, the running credo that the Democrats need a southerner on the ticket holds up here. So in reality, FDR was the last Democrat to run on a winning ticket without either candidate having a southern or Confederate heritage (1944 running mate Truman was from the southern-sympathizing state of Missouri, and descended from Confederate soldiers and sympathizers), and so you'd have to go back to 1940 (with running mate Henry Wallace, from Iowa) to have a completely non-southern, or non-sympathizing ticket which won.

Even disputing the FDR-Truman picture, it still holds up that since 1960, the Democrats who have won the White House have had southerners on the ticket, and since 1964, at the top of the ticket. 1964 = height of the civil rights era.

Not after all this analysis, how do I feel about the necessity of having a southerner on the Democratic ticket? Well, I support an Ohioan with no running mate yet, so it seems it isn't my first priority.

But...

From a strategic, electoral vote perspective, I would say it is highly recommended, because winning without the south (whether you include Florida or not, and Florida is HIGHLY desirable, as we all learned too painfully) would be VERY difficult. I cannot emphasize this enough.

Also, the original poster claimed that the GOP has gotten away with carpetbagging since the Kennedy era. Perhaps, but Wesley Clark fits the model for the Democrats as a potential carpetbagger, for he was born in Chicago, and was raised in Arkansas, much like Dumbya was born in CT, and raised in Texas. Is Clark therefore not a true southerner? I leave that for others to argue. It does not matter to me if he is or not. Like Eisenhower, his status as a general will trump geography, although Clark is much less beloved, and less well-known, than Ike.

I think the real reason Democrats have not had "carpetbaggers" is that they essentially have never had the necessity. It seems Democrats have been able to produce four genuine southerners since 1964, starting with LBJ, with national appeal - Carter in 1976, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Gore in 2000 (the undisputed popular vote winner, who was born in D.C., but it is still considered a southern city). Look at real southern Republicans like Trent Lott and Tom DeLay (don't look too long, or you'll get ill) and you find that they have little appeal outside the party faithful, and outside the region. That is why no true southern Republican has made it to the White House since (not counting Eisenhower for the reasons stated above) perhaps Lincoln, and that's only if you count Kentucky, a border state, as truly southern. Since Lincoln was the first Republican president, we're talking a clean, non-southern presidential record. So if you DO count Ike, he is the ONLY southern Republican alongside Lincoln to attain the presidency. That's almost 100 years of separation. Ohio trumps all for the Republicans, followed by the northeast and west coast, as the true point of origin for their presidents.

So yes, the Republicans usually carpetbag with either the presidential or VP candidate, and the Democrats have run true southerners on one or both sides of the ticket, for 40 years.

Not sure if this trend will end in 2004.

[forgethell]

8. It's not that hard to figure out.

Most national Dems espouse values that are offensive to a lot of Southerners. Most national Republicans don't. But Southerners are like other ethnic groups in that they like to see their own win. So they will vote for a liberal, Democratic Southerner but not a liberal Democratic Northerner.

unwise? Short-sighted? I think so, but fact I believe that it is.

[papau]

3. Thought Ike grew up in IOWA - -the ins folks there were his backers

in the 40's

[Zomby Woof]

7. he grew up in Kansas

No matter who backed him, Ike moved to Kansas as a toddler, and grew up there.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Denison, TX, is Ike's birthplace

It is right on the Red River bordering OK. Ike was raised in KS. FYI, the Texans I know are really really mad about Shrub calling himself a Texan. He's a carpetbagger, pure and simple. To call him otherwise is fighting words in my neck of the woods.

[leyton]

5. Clark...

Clark is probably our best hope for a southerner on the ticket (I'm an Edwards fan, but I don't see him on the ticket). He's a carpetbagger too, of sorts: he was born in Chicago but moved to Arkansas.

I don't think Bush has really relied on Southern roots. I mean, he probably would have carried Texas anyway even if he hadn't been governor of Connecticut instead. I think it's more of a personality thing with him, he's adopted a personality that maybe appeals more to Southerners.

EDIT: Although, in my local newspaper there's a reenactment of the Civil War every week in the letters to the editor. So there certainly is the animosity towards carpetbaggers...