707 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

Tremendous summary of a complicated issue

Thank you

Expand full comment

And if you are from Michigan, this brings even greater clarity to why we are fighting so hard to re-elect Governor Gretchen Whitmer!

Expand full comment

I’m from Michigan. Even my non political wife yells at Dixon when her ads appear on TV

Expand full comment

Grew up there. On east coast for 30 years. I can’t even fathom how Dixon is considered a viable candidate.

Expand full comment

Betsy DeVos money, thats how

Expand full comment

I live in MI. Even though President Biden won here, it is awash with MAGAs. Dixon believes and promotes the Big Lie.

Expand full comment

Yes, Laurie, I agree.

Expand full comment

Also a native Michigander. I was there a week ago visiting my brother in western MI. The ads were much worse than those here in MN. To laugh, I kept asking who, in right mind, would name their daughter, Tudor - is she the reincarnation of Henry VIII?

Expand full comment

It was a Ford model. Perhaps the R candidate is a Ford heirss. “ The Ford Tudor (pronounced two-door) was a coupe marketed by Ford in the fifties. Despite its name, the Tudor was not named after the British Tudor family, but rather just a play on the fact that it had two doors. Accompanying it was the Ford Fordor.”

- from a website whose link I can’t get my phone to let me paste here

Expand full comment

Elizabeth Ford’s naming a car Tudor was not as bad as Chevy’s Nova, which had special trouble in Latin America. Of course in Spanish No Va means ‘no go.’

Expand full comment

Even if you made it all up, love the story. Thank you.

Expand full comment

“Tooter”?

Expand full comment

I'm going to have to read this a few more times to understand all the twists.and turns of how it evolved. However it sure doesn’t fit neatly into a TV or newspaper ad!

Expand full comment

That's what I just said!!! And it doesn't. But maybe Heather's ending could be turned into a question: How did it happen that members of a party that once defended civil rights, now make white power rants on public media? I'm going to try this on twitter!

Expand full comment

I lived it all from 1934 to the present, in the South until 1997. It’s really exactly as told. From WWII onward the twists and turns were even more complex than at any point after the 1861 war. What do we call that war these days? The Civil War? There was nothing civil about it. The Brady photographs tell all. Our history is a bloody mess; the dream of democracy is what has made us special as long as we held onto it. If we have lost it through greed and stupidity, we will know by mid-November. Vote and vote blue!

Expand full comment

Thank you Virginia, such a perilous time.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Sandra. Watching Queen Elizabeth’s funeral, remembering photos of her with her sister and their parents walking in bombed out parts of London, reminded of her being “out” in the British equivalent of the WAACs, I recognized that both of us had been formed by WWII. And in my public school in a poor district during and after WWII, I had Virginia history, world history, American history, and civics. My civics teacher, a truly rare lady, told her classes that if they did not vote in every election they were entitled to vote in, she would come back to haunt them. Forty years later, at a high school reunion, she was the only teacher mentioned. Between her and my father, I grew up and grew old working on many elections and voting.

Expand full comment

I’m with you. I still have a hard time grasping it…I also do not understand the filibuster, and the electoral college………………….

Expand full comment

I'm with you Sandra. I feel like I have to chart it while I'm reading it. I'm very confused right now.

Expand full comment

Agreed!

Expand full comment

Any political party that aspired to be a national party had a northern anti-slavery and a southern pro-slavery wing. this was true of the whigs, the democrats and the republicans. the northern and southern wings of these parties were constantly compromising. in recent times northern and southern democrats could barely keep the party together, but there was no break up, even under fdr. the south voted for everything he wanted as long as he wasn't too pro-naacp. they still curse him in dixie, but if it weren't for fdr the south would probably not have electricity yet. and all the small forts in the south are huge military installations now, thanks to fdr. they'd better pray down there that the federal gov't doesn't get out of their lives anytime soon. the dem party broke up during the civil rights era. in other words, over race. the northern wing supported civil rights, and that's all it took. the republicans gladly allied with the south because it made their party stronger. northern dems and repubs always think they can control their southern wings, but the south is so solid that the tail always ends up wagging the dog. "southern slavery is an institution that is in earnest. northern freedom is an institution that is not in earnest." and just read that stupid 13th amendment that everybody moons over in that ridiculous s. spielberg cartoon, lincoln. did the north not realize that white southern juries would simply convict black men on trumped-up charges and send them to jail, where they would work for no pay? in other words, as slaves? you'd think abe lincoln had never been a lawyer.

Expand full comment