Condescending? Amy? She grew up in Wayzata and her daddy was a STrib columnist who likes to climb Mount Everest and the DFL machine bent over backwards to jumpstart her career.
Be nice. She's had a hard enough time as it is.

Golly, I can't imagine where we would have come up with the idea that those rubes in southern states were ignorant...

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/feb2006/20060221_andrew-kemple-funeral.pdf

Just to set a few things straight...

Gary Eichten was not interviewing Amy. Mike Mulchay was. At least get that right.

Following the links, GOPWingman says,

"Klobuchar's insinuation that southern states are sexist because they're conservative is offensive."

I've spent A LOT of time in the South. My entire family is from from Kansas, Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma. Simple observation and experience will tell you The Southern states ARE sexist - more so than the Northern tates. For Wingman to interpret that Amy is concluding it is BECAUSE Southern States are conservative says more about Wingman that Klobuchar.

Me thinks thou doeth protest too much Wingman et al.

Doeth?

Obviously you haven't spent enough time in the South, Doug, at least not in the Gulf states. There's a reason they are no longer a liberal voting bloc -- and it's not ignorance, it's experience. In 1980 the Carter/Mondale ticket garnered a total of 3 states. In 1984, Mondale carried only Minnesota. Clinton never carried the South either.

It's not that they're unenlightened or sexist, it's that they're not liberal and don't believe in European socialist government.

"it's that they're not liberal and don't believe in European socialist government."

In the eyes of any good blue-blooded hard core Dem, that DOES mean they are unenlightened. Sexist is just another bit of icing on the cake they throw in when they don't get their oppressive feminist wishes.

Lawrence Summers knows ALL about that one.

"Doeth?"

-Homer Simpson, circa 944 a.d.

Thanks, Bill. I guess I don't watch enough TV.

Eracus said,

"In 1980 the Carter/Mondale ticket garnered a total of 3 states. In 1984, Mondale carried only Minnesota. Clinton never carried the South either."

My, That's fascinating Eracus... Please do elaboate some more will you? Wait... before you do, let me pull over to the side of the road. I wouldn't want to doze off and cause an accident.

Ok... That's better. You were saying?

Doug declared "I've spent A LOT of time in the South. My entire family is from from Kansas, Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma. Simple observation and experience will tell you The Southern states ARE sexist - more so than the Northern tates."

So Doug, when did you stop being a sexist?

Sorry to disappoint you kermit but my parents managed to go north years before I was born.

I do however have the familial responsibility of frequent trips to the Bible belt.

I also enjoy frequent trip to Alabama for bass fishing.

The fishing is world class, the Barbeque is fantastic but I'm sorry, the people are sexist.

And for the record, I can be sexist. I try not to be but as the old saying goes... progress not perfection.

Doug, what do you call the grouping of a whole region's people together and assign a common characteristic to everyone with complete disregard for individuals?
Hint: It starts with a B.

Ummmm... Bananna?

Bocce Ball?

Boink?

I give up.

Sorry Kermit...

There's more open and overt sexism in the South.

Happy now?

Gee Doug, do you think all black folk is lazy and shiftless too?

No more than whites kermit.

By the way, do you always adopt a stereotypical style of speech when refering to people of color?

No Doug, but since you don't recognize your own bigotry I thought I needed to emphasize the point.

Kermit touches on a good point. Left of center Minnesotans harbor a lot of genuine bigotry toward southern whites. Some of it is warranted (as it is, in fact, against plenty of Minnesotans; I've never encountered as moronic a bunch of racists as when I worked at biker bars in Brooklyn Center and Rosemount.

Bravo, meevotch! Assigning characteristics to all peoples of a region based on stereotypes is classic bigotry. People on the left NEVER see their own inclination to bigotry.

So kermit, you emphasise the point that I acknowledged that I can be sexist by speaking in a stereotypicaly Step "n Fetch it style?

I wonder if you even see the unintentional humor in what you say?

and Mitch, "Left of center Minnesotans harbor a lot of genuine bigotry toward southern whites"

are you suggesting that right of center Minnesotans don't?

Doug, ther is never unintentional humor in what I say. It's all intended. It only seems unintentional when you suffer from HDS.

"and Mitch, "Left of center Minnesotans harbor a lot of genuine bigotry toward southern whites"

are you suggesting that right of center Minnesotans don't?"

Show me a significant right-of-center pundit who would say anything like "these tax cuts will make us a cold Mississippi", using "Mississippi" as a code word for "backward, racist, redneck..."

White rednecks on the East Side of Saint Paul are just as racist as anything you'll find in Mississippi. I know them, I've met them, I've sat with them at bars.

They're all lifelong DFLers, too.

Whaaaa?

You said,

"Left of center Minnesotans harbor a lot of genuine bigotry toward southern whites"

Key words Mitch...

"Left of center Minnesotans..."

When challenged to qualify your statement,

You respond with "show me a significant right-of-center pundit"

Next...

"genuine bigotry toward southern whites"

You respond with "these tax cuts will make us a cold Mississippi"

and then babble about white rednecks racists in a bar?

Did you have an accident and bump your head today?

Okay, let's see if I can explain this in itty-bitty terms so the 'wingers here get it:

Pretty much by any measure you want to use--social, economic, socioeconomic, education, mean income, average income, cultural, or whatnot--the South is behind the North. That's nothing against Southerners generally--I'm sure many of them are nice people. But their economy sucks, their education level as a whole is far behind the North, their divorce rate is 2-3 times that of the North, illegitimacy is far above that of the North, total charitable giving is behind, etc., etc.

Given the opportunity to live in Mississippi rent-free for life, I'd pass--because by any reasonable measure, it's a lousy place to live. Oh, and yes, there are a lot of racists and sexists and zealots there, too, more than there are up here by percentage. Last I checked, Roy Moore wasn't challenging for the GOP nomination up here.

If that's bigoted, fine--I'm a bigot. But the fact is that none of the whining righties here would move there either, despite the nirvana that its low-tax, pro-God, anti-gay, pro-business, anti-welfare system should have achieved by now. Why is it that we in the godforsaken liberal North should be so much of a better place to live? Can't imagine.

"Okay, let's see if I can explain this in itty-bitty terms so the 'wingers here get it"

Jeff: I realize you're just aping the devil-may-care je ne sais quouis of the likes of Atrios or Babs O'Brien - but you're hardly qualified to condescend.

Your assault on the South needs a brief reply. Probably briefer than I'm going to give it, but here goes:

"Pretty much by any measure you want to use--social, economic, socioeconomic, education, mean income, average income, cultural, or whatnot--the South is behind the North."

Right. The South has issues. There are social differences (approaches to violence, work ethic, etc) that make the place inherently different.

More on that later.

" That's nothing against Southerners generally--I'm sure many of them are nice people. But their economy sucks,"

While there's a work ethic issue involved, surely you realize the hopeless generalization you're indulging. Florida's economy sucks? Texas? Raleigh/Durham? Dallas/Fort Worth?

"their education level as a whole is far behind the North"

Um, that pretty much depends on:
1) what you use to assess "education level". Test scores? Funding? Pick yer poison. All have their problems.
2) the level of prejudice and stereotype you bring to the conversation.

" their divorce rate is 2-3 times that of the North,"

The south has some interesting social issues; their murder rate is also very high.

" illegitimacy is far above that of the North,"

Same reason as I'd abjure moving to the ghetto, I suppose.

"Given the opportunity to live in Mississippi rent-free for life, I'd pass--because by any reasonable measure, it's a lousy place to live."

OK. So because North Dakota has better schools, lower crime, lower illegitimate birth rates, and lower unemployment (in the 6-8 major cities) than Minnesota, you'd move there?

Why not?

The factors you cite have nothing to do with why I'd move anyplace, by the way. Bear in mind that while populations in most northern cities have shrunk, the populations in the southeast and Texas have boomed. And we're not talking okies looking for jobs sharecropping, either; Research Triangle, Tampa and DFW are all advanced high tech economies and are all doing very well - and by rational measures (not test scores, for starters) their schools are just fine. And yet I'd never move to any of them. Why? Because I need winter, snow, and cold in my life, or I feel crappy!

"Oh, and yes, there are a lot of racists and sexists and zealots there, too, more than there are up here by percentage."

Cite something, if you don't mind. Because I suspect that statement is *ad rectum*. Jeff, there's a reason that many middle-class *Blacks* are moving from the North back to the South.

" Last I checked, Roy Moore wasn't challenging for the GOP nomination up here."

One guy (even assuming your ascription of racism is correct, and I've not heard that it is) is a bellwether for all of a society?

You really wanna go there, Jeff? Because in all my travels, the most racist mofo I've *ever* met in my life was a DFL organizer from the East Side of Saint Paul. If Roy Moore (qualification noted above) is an emblem for all southern white males, then my "pal" from the East Side most certainly represents you, Jeff. No escaping it.

Unless you accept that waving "Roy Moore" around as a symbol for all of southern society is really kinda dumb.

"If that's bigoted, fine--I'm a bigot."

Other terms that might apply: Illogical, prejudiced, ill-informed, and regurgitating a cant that is at worst only partially true.

" But the fact is that none of the whining righties here would move there either,"

Whining righties? Wow.

" despite the nirvana that its low-tax, pro-God, anti-gay, pro-business, anti-welfare system should have achieved by now."

Er, yeah. I'll answer all the above below, Jeff - but just as a suggestion, you might consider boning up on logic as a substitute for content-free snarking.

" Why is it that we in the godforsaken liberal North should be so much of a better place to live? "

Reasons that have nothing to do, largely, with statism (aka Liberalism); strong work ethic, good access to natural resources, no civil war that crushed the region's social and economic development for 100 years, no social fabric that was debilitated by 200-odd years of quasi-feudal pseudo-aristrocracy before that, a Calvinistic religious tradition that emphasizes hard work and communitarianism (not statism, although we certainly adopted that in Minnesota, too), and on, and on.

"Can't imagine. "

Well, it's a good thing you've read this far, then.

Go forth and think outside your self-imposed box of prejudices, now.

You're welcome.

Oh, yeah, Jeff - follow-up point:

How come the parts of the "liberal, Godforsaken North" that are the most liveable and successful (according to the criteria you use to pillory the south) are the least liberal, lowest-taxed, and most pro-faith?

North Dakota's schools are better than Minnesota's. Both Dakotas beat Minnesota in overall health and life expectancy. Both have higher literacy (or lower illiteracy) rates. Both have comparable unemployment, and both rode out the recession *much* more smoothly than Minnesota (addled as we were by the detritus of the Ventura regime). Illegitimacy and divorce?

Get the picture yet?

And yet, unaccountably, both states have more "Mississippi-like" governments! Lower taxes! Less intervention!

How could it be?

lending tree home loan