"Tantalus in Tartarus" - A Blog by a Southern Republican

"Tantalus in Tartarus"
Posted on June 16, 2015 by WillWaller2012

Being a Republican in the American South is hard; really, really hard.

Not to start this blog out on a negative, but sometimes it occurs to me just how difficult it can be for myself not to just take, support and fight for activist Republican stances in a town such as Cullman, and in a state such Alabama; but to merely call myself a Republican in any state of the Solid South seems to be a backhanded insult to most people living south of say...Knoxville. Throughout Dixie (were I've lived, for all intents and purposes, my entire life), there exists a strange political ambience that really doesn't exist elsewhere in the United States. When I've visited cities such as New York, Hartford, or my city of birth, Annapolis, and on the rare occasion somehow managed to wind up debating social or economic policy with the locals, regardless of whether one's a Republican or a Democrat you could pick out a few of the other party's positions and reach some sort of mutual understanding. Both sides could compromise, and occasionally even empathise, with the other's point of view and why they hold it, and even being questioning your own stances if they managed to spin their position in just the right way, whether they belong to the same party or not.

In the Solid South, and especially in Alabama, there really isn't room for much discussion or debate with the 'opposing side' (at least from a Democratic point of view). In the south, politics takes on a more 'sporting' character; "you're either with us, or you're against us" appears to be the prevailing Democratic war cry against black and white Republicans alike. Generalising here, but this, coupled with the admittedly fiery history between the two parties once one heads south of Mason-Dixon, largely lends itself to a rather polarising effect that drives both parties, and individuals who support said parties, away from each other. This occurs on a moral, emotional, and logical level, and though I don't like to bring up the issues regarding race and political allegiance, it's pretty much inevitable to point out how much southern Democratic prejudice plays into forming their personal opinions on members of Republican party.

Now, I don't like bringing up the topic of race so fragrantly, as I've always like to think I'm above the 'on-the-ground' Democratic talking points that lend themselves to gems of insight like "at least we support whites as well as blacks" (seriously, I have heard this said, multiple times, at a number of Democratic rallies I've visited over the last few years); but race and politics are so intertwined in Dixie that its pretty tough to differentiate the two at times. Countless poll after countless poll show how, especially in the south, African-Americans typically vote overwhelmingly Republican; in the last presidential election a Gallup Poll found that nationwide 82% of black people voted for President Dillon, and in the southern states, that number was as high as 96% (I like to thank the South Carolina Democratic party for 'helping' the Republicans out in that regard). This is of course no surprise for the party that gave us presidents like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Dewey, Warren, and Milner, but until you've lived in states such as South Carolina, Mississippi, or yes, Alabama, it's pretty hard to internalise just how much the colour of your skin affects not just your voting habits, but your entire world view.

Speaking as a WASP myself, many people throughout the years wonder why I don't just give up and become a Democrat. In October of last year, I had the privilege of debating one-on-one Stephen Wallace, the chair of Cullman's local Democratic party, at a public two-party function in Montgomery. We could ask each other a maximum of five questions and had at most ten minutes to respond, after which we could take questions from the (admittedly small) audience that was there to spectate. The one question that still sticks in my mind was asked by a women who appeared to be in her 50's;

"Do Republicans believe in anything else besides stealing white jobs for poor blacks?"
After sharing a nervous chuckle with my Democratic colleague, he waved her off, shaking his head, and went onto ask the audience for more questions. I was having none of it that day either (besides the debate, I had just finished helping to piece together a hotel room for a Democratic Party meeting at the behest of a good friend of mine), but I do somehow still regret not answering it a quick, sharp "no". Still, it gives you a general idea at how many Democrats in the Solid South think of party/race relations; there's a reason it's called the Solid South.

Whites vote Democrat. Blacks vote Republican. It's the overwhelming feeling of the south, and it's a fact so terrible due to how true it is; and it's only gotten worse since the election of Jackie Dillon and George King (who, as I'm sure any keen political observer would have noticed, is black). Since 2009, (at least from my perspective as a campaigner from the ground) an African-American being Vice President really has stoked white, predominantly Democratic anger throughout not just the south; with some Democrats I personally know and respect going to far to suggest that the President is secretly being controlled as a puppet by her Vice President (the misogynistic character of this conspiracy is pretty plain to see outside of the glaring racism). Of course, King's announcement not two weeks ago that he's running for the Presidency in next years general election has in some ways helped fan the flames of white Democratic opposition to our current administration.

Now, one of the goals of the Republican party not just in Alabama, but also throughout other states in the Solid South, has been to expand the scope of my party to being seen more that just the "African-American-dominated" machine system that many see it as. Of course, this process has been painfully slow, given that many white voters seem to be in favour of, in the immortal words of President Milner, "voting for a white communist before a black conservative". He was, as I am now, speaking in hyperbole, but the notion that the Republican party is somehow "just for blacks" and is "dangerously liberal" looks to remain the dominant current of political discourse in my home state for sometime to come (not, I like to think, for a lack of very, very hard work). Particularly, the idea that the Republicans in the south are "dominated by liberals and socialists" was a big part of the congressional push against my party in last years congressional elections; so-much-so that for the first time in twelve years, we had to make the tough decision of running only one campaign for an Alabaman seat in the House; it being the safe, African-American-majority seat that Republicans have held since the '80's.

Everyday, before and after I do party work, I try to remain as positive as possible about the future of the Republican Party in Dixie. Supporters like to pick out titbits like the "fast growing African-American population" in the south to try and reassure ourselves that we can, one day in the far-flung future, wrestle some form of control away from the Democrats. How can we believe in that, though, in spite of any decent form of African-American turnout in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc. How can we claim that one day, perhaps the Republican may even win a SENATE seat in Solid South, when the Democratic party has jumped through hoops and done everything in their power (perhaps to the point of their actions being extremely unconstitutional besides morally reprehensible) to disenfranchise poor (read "blacks and minorities") voters in a form that resembles their old-school Jim Crow ways.

No; unless the Dillon administration managed to climb around a Congress which dragged their feet for years on the President's welfare and prison reform proposals, and force through a series of laws to help end gerrymandering and voter intimidation (both legal and illegal forms of it), the Republican Party in the south remains stranded. The only way we can seek to better the position of the only truly liberal party in this country is to work together on the local level, not advertised as white and black, but as Americans, striving together for greater peace and security for all citizens; all whilst attacking the hypocrisy and moral repugnancy of a southern Democratic block that is fast devolving into a new segregationist party for a new generation.

Jackie Dillon's 2008 campaign manager, Miles Florian (a native of the staunchly Democratic North Carolina), said that, and I'm paraphrasing here, "being a Republican in south is akin to being Tantalus in Tartarus". Like the old Greek legend, we Republicans seemingly wallow in a sort of purgatory; unable to win any sort of offices of note south of Mason-Dixon (besides the odd short-lived governorship or senate seat in Virginia), all whilst deluding ourselves that perhaps we could try, try to reach out and get a hold of something, anything, that would give us a solid foothold in the Solid South. I try not to think of the southern Republican Party all the time in such a stark, pessimistic attitude, but after almost eight years of persistent campaigning for my party (beginning with President Dillon's push for the nomination all the way back in '08), the stream of constant failures and hollow half-victories really has begun to get to me.

That is largely the reason I am beginning this blog; to try and map out and explain what future the Republican Party has in its most hostile environment, to try, see and explain ways in which the Democratic Party's stranglehold over the Solid South may be broken. It may be hard to see why such an effort is being put into something most think is just a pipe dream. Maybe I'm just delusional; maybe the Solid South will never be broken, and maybe the Democrats strengthen it by somehow winning over African-Americans. Maybe the Democrats are successful in their crusade to stamp out African-American voting rights; maybe we will return to the days of Jim Crow and segregation.

Or maybe, just maybe, in the words of our President;

"If the dream never dies [...] hope will prevail."​
 
Last edited:
On the Topic of Georgia
Posted on June 21, 2015 by WillWaller2012

Winston Churchill once said of Russia;

"...it is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."

I believe the same can be said of the state of Georgia; just replace 'riddle' with 'reactionary state', 'mystery' with 'backwards world view', and 'enigma' with 'ultra-conservative dogma'. I'm speaking in hyperbole here, but, if you haven’t heard as of yet; over the last couple of weeks, an especially within the last few days, Georgia’s state legislature has been cooking up a storm of controversy after announcing that it will be commissioning a two-and-a-half meter tall statue of President John Carson. Now, I for one initially didn’t see what the problem was at first; there are statues of our beloved 5th worst president peppering several municipalities all throughout Georgia, I for one coming across four during my visit there during the 2012 Republican National Convention (my personal favourite being the one outside his Presidential Library, where it looks as if he’s putting on the most forced, false smile ever produced). Now, I understand why Georgia likes to set up statues of a man so unfit for the presidency he was literally born in the town of ‘Buchanan’; between Ty Cobb and Bill Bryant, he was the Peach State’s most successful export, and the only one to reach the office of President. However, what I don’t understand is why the Democratic-controlled legislature supports building a statue of a man so viscerally racist that he was rejected by the Ku Klux Klan in a majority African-American neighbourhood in Atlanta.

Yes, four days ago, Governor Garland (who is recorded as having stated “President Carson was a great man […] a great inspiration to all Georgians”) announced that he would seek legislative approval from the heavily gerrymandered Democratic-controlled General Assembly to commission a statue of John Carson outside a library in College Park, Atlanta; a city with an African-American population of over 80%. This has, understandably, caused uproar within the black community throughout the Deep South (especially here in Alabama; I myself having personally heard some of my black colleagues ridicule Garland with not-so flowery language), and between this, Vice President King’s announcement that he’s running for office next year, and the shootings of Clay Fields and Christine Barrett and the storm that blew up over those, it’s looking like race relations in this country are spiralling downwards at a pace not seen since the Great Recession, or hell, the Presidency of John Carson. Indeed, Georgia’s public opinion on this matter appears to be split down racial lines as well; just a few hours ago, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution released a poll (administered over the telephone, so perhaps take it with a grain of salt) that stated at amongst the African-American community in Atlanta, 62% said they opposed the move, 21% supported it, whilst 17% said they had no opinion one way or the other. Contrast this with what white respondents had to say; 48% said they had no opinion, 26% said they supported it, with the remaining 26% saying they opposed the statue.

Whilst this poll may be heavily skewed one way or the other, or perhaps just registered that white people who responded cared little about the politics of the move at all, it’s still important to note just how flagrantly, perhaps not racist, but ill-advised this move is in regards to the macro-level social relationship between whites and blacks not just in Georgia, but throughout the Solid South, starting with a simple statement; President Carson was not a good man. During the Republican National Convention in Atlanta back in 2012 when I was still working for the Gadsden Times, and being the pseudo-political historian that I am, I asked several people on the streets their opinions of the only individual the Peach State has sent to the Oval Office, the most common response from whites being ‘mixed-to-slight positive’, whilst blacks bent more significantly towards ‘negative’. Carson, besides the War in Colombia and his clear guilt in the Bridgwater Scandal (there is far too much evidence to suggest otherwise; no, I will not debate the matter with conspiracy theorists), was also atrociously violent and flagrant when it came to his ‘tough-on-crime’ statutes, especially in regards to clamping down on drug use (which, coincidentally, was used more often by poor, lower-class blacks).

In his dog whistle campaigns not just for the presidency, but also (and perhaps to a more overt degree) the governorship of Georgia, he targeted minorities by promising his white constituents that he would increase the power of the police, devolve more power to local (white) communities to allow them to ostensibly “control their own communities safety”, as well as severely punish repeat offenders and cut welfare from entire communities that saw high crime rates (those affected being disproportionately African-American). Whilst in the White House, Carson used his symbolic ‘chainsaw’ to cut down spending on the Warren/Bush civil rights programs significantly, devolving many aspects of the desegregation process to state legislatures, as well as vetoing six amendments to the Civil Rights Act, largely to spite the then Republican-controlled Congress; not to mention his own personal, vitriolic racism that we’ve learned from tape recordings and biographies. Whilst African-Americans of Georgia have not forgotten how detrimental and honestly toxic the Presidency of John Carson was to their community, to our cultural memory it all gets lost in the chaos of the 1970’s; particularly the Colombian War and the Bridgewater Scandal. Today, whilst African-Americans haven't forgotten what the Democratic Party is capable of when they move into the White House, whites, especially those middle-class and higher, only remember the scandals and paranoid fear that pretty much permeated throughout that terrible decade.

When I pressed some of my friends, correspondents, and fellow Republicans in Georgia for their opinions on President Carson, I often got back scathing and sometimes downright bitter responses; with one of my close friends who works in the party, Ridgeback Marshall, stating that the Republican position on Carson deviated heavily from Democratic-voting Georgian whites who had a largely neutral opinion of him in spite of the shame and disrepute he brought to the highest office in the land. At the time I actually talked to Ridgeback about Georgian opinions on their only President, I had already asked several people throughout that state their opinions on the man; however, my friend also stated there exists an extremely large undercurrent of “popular conspiracy theories” held by white Georgians, particularly those of a more conservative rural bent that believe Carson was innocent the Bridgewater Scandal; that he was set up by Republicans in Congress (working with Harrison Williams) and that his suicide was ultimately a ploy to get the Republican-backed Williams into the White House. Being a bit of a fan of conspiracy theories, I was well aware of the conspiracy, however, my friend assured me that it ran much, much deeper in Georgia than what I could be thinking. Together, mixed with a smattering of pseudo-history and ‘alternative narratives’ that have been developing since President Dillon stepped into office, as well as the conspiracy theories surrounding Carson’s tenure and his suicide (some of which are far more racist than what many would realise), it appears that outside of the African-American community in Georgia, Carson’s public opinion is starting to rebound after spending thirty-five years six-feet deep.

This however doesn’t explain what is so paradoxical about race-relations, party politics, and political alignment in the Peach State. Yes, in spite of the Georgia Democratic Party’s history of supporting racial segregation, ‘though-on-crime’ laws that targeted minorities, casual racism of individual members, and now support for building a statue of the second-most racist President before James Coleman in a majority African-American neighbourhood; in spite of all that, 14% of said African-American community voted for Martin Baldwin over President Dillon in the last presidential election, despite said candidate receiving less than 8% of the African-American vote in all other states of the Deep South. Even Governor Garland, the man currently proposing and supporting the statue of President Carson, a man who called Carson “one of the greatest recent presidents” won 21% of the African-American vote in 2010, and 18% in 2014. Whilst this numbers don’t seem large, they represent a truly staggering margin for any Democratic candidate; especially one so overt in his support of mandatory sentencing and ‘three-strike’ laws that have been proven to disproportionately (and sometimes wilfully) target minorities; not to mention the blatant dog whistle campaign that he engaged in when he ran for president back in 2012 (can anyone say “urban rioters”).

Before anything is brought up regarding this; trust me, every single member of the African-American community at large has agency with how he or she votes and why, and I for one would be the last to think that all minorities in America fall into lockstep behind the Republican Party. However, I’m honestly just at a loss as to why so many vote for a man such as Garland. Is it some form demographic shift that I’m just not aware of? Shifts in ideology? Am I merely misconstruing how Georgians view Garland’s public policy? He does admittedly have a folksy charm about him, and I for one believe personal perception matters a lot more than one’s actual personality or policies (not that they don’t matter throughout an election). However, without being there on the ground level, I have no definitive idea as to why such a governor in such a state belonging to such a party won such a high percentage of a community that traditionally votes against Democratic candidates. In fact (and this is a though that just popped into my head), perhaps instead of voting against the Democratic candidate, African-Americans in Georgia voted against the Republican candidate. Admittedly, Cole Joyce was not a good choice for Georgia Republicans to choose; he was clearly brash and confrontational, and his ‘cut government out of everything’ style campaign probably did not garner a lot of support from poor minorities. Garland, for all his faults and failings (and there are many), does support a modicum of government intervention in the economy, which brings me to an interesting topic to finish out this post.

On the issue of ideology, I like to imagine myself as a Moderate Republican; whilst I’m certainly no bleeding heart north-east liberal that sips coffee from a wine glass, I’m also no plains state classicalist that wants to retreat government almost entirely from the public sphere. I prefer to call myself a ‘progressive conservative’, like the Republicans of the mid-west like Bruce Stanley; I support candidates that balance the budget, but not at the expense of the poor and destitute. I support at the very least soft government intervention in the economy to maximise efficiency and ensure those that otherwise would starve do not. I support welfare for the very poor and needy and the 55/15 tax rate, but also a free and genuinely open market. I support reform of the prison system and law system so they no longer disproportionately affect minorities, but also free speech for those that think otherwise. One day, I certainly hope, the people of my home state, as well as the United States as a whole recognise these beliefs as beneficial not only to themselves individually, but also the nation on a moral and ethical level. The Solid South may be the last place to learn such a lesson; but one day, I sincerely hope it does.
 
Last edited:

MERRICA

Banned
Hmm, just something I would like to add, the Republican really needs to abandon the Lasseiz faire policies that have all but wiped out their support among the unions and the working class.What would you rather have, 3 months Paternal leave and a high minimum wage or to land up unemploymed and destitute because all your jobs are going to India and the Chinese Republic for some stupid " Free Trade" bullcrap.

This is really the whole reason why the republicans although winning the presidential election, still are bleeding out on the state level over trade.


(OOC I can contribute in this right?)
 
Last edited:
Hmm, just something I would like to add, the Republican really needs to abandon the Lasseiz faire policies that have all but wiped out their support among the unions and the working class.What would you rather have, 3 months Paternal leave and a high minimum wage or to land up unemploymed and destitute because all your jobs are going to India and the Chinese Republic for some stupid " Free Trade" bullcrap.

This is really the whole reason why the republicans haven't won a national election for 2 decades and if they don't shape up, they'll end up destitute and collapsing.


(OOC I can contribute in this right?)
Sorry, I really wasn't banking on this being an open timeline (why too much risk of it getting out of hand). Also, you're wrong in the fact that the Republican haven't won a national election in decades; the current President (Jackie Dillon, more on her as this progresses) is both a Republican, and the first female President.
 

MERRICA

Banned
Sorry, I really wasn't banking on this being an open timeline (why too much risk of it getting out of hand). Also, you're wrong in the fact that the Republican haven't won a national election in decades; the current President (Jackie Dillon, more on her as this progresses) is both a Republican, and the first female President.

Oh, sorry bout that.
 
The First (Major) Challenger Emerges
Posted on June 23, 2015 by WillWaller2012

Well, it's official; after several months of sitting on his hands and twiddling his thumbs with that 'exploratory committee' of his, Bob Coleman has finally announced that he's running for the Democratic and presumably Presidential (though let's not get ahead of ourselves here) nomination for next year's general election. Unlike the grand total of three reporters that work for Everson Media, this has not come as a shock to anyone who's actually been paying attention to Coleman's media releases over the past few weeks, one of which included his brother's seemingly premature public statement that he would support "Bob for President, whether he's running or not". In fact, besides the announcement, it was perhaps more interesting to watch and listen to Coleman's announcement rally without his brother there besides him, let alone him not speaking afterwards. After having reported on a fairly staggering number of the Governor's public addresses (including once where I had the unfortunate opportunity to see him speak live), I believe I've only seen him talk a grand total of five times without the former president there behind him. The Governor did address this in his announcement, though not without the rhetorical flourishings that pretty much define the Coleman's public speaking habits;

"...unfortunately folks, my brother can't join us here today; after several decades working towards building a greater, stronger, and more proud America, one does tend to tire after a while [audience cheers]."​

The folks in Mississippi go wild for anything Coleman don't they...well, perhaps not the African-American community over there...or the gays...or women. Honestly, the Coleman brother's have done more harm than good to many, many folks in Mississippi; far worse than the Republicans (if they ever even had the opportunity to take power) ever could. In fact, I've never recalled any of my fellow "liberal harbingers" (yes, an actual quote from the Governor) in the Magnolia State suggest some of the downright terrifying things that Bob Coleman's ever spouted out of that hateful maw of his. To be honest, I don't even think James was ever as downright and outwardly hateful as his brother his (and James was governor during the 1990's). For example, I'm pretty sure James never supported breaking with a Supreme Court decision in an effort to produce a 'moral' amendment to the state constitution banning all forms of abortion; nor do I believe that when the former president was running for office he had declared an intention to "federally reverse all forms of anti-traditional, anti-family, anti-american homosexual marriages" that would ban it all the way down to the state level. So much for the great Democratic support of 'state's rights'.

In fact, Bob Coleman's announcement speech left a lot to be desired for any supporters of traditionally conservative, state's rights-centred governance that James focused on when he was in office. In fact, I believe the President's brother talked far more about imposing from the federal level what he saw as "moral legislation" onto the states either in the form of acts of congress or an executive order (not that the Supreme Court would likely uphold that, but what are you going to do) rather than 'state's rights' to constitutionally ban gay marriage. Additionally, it appears that Coleman's "moral legislation", whatever that lofty term honestly means, seems to also involve a lot in regards to President Dillon's prison reform; specifically, how the President's attempts to stamp out privately held prison's and reforming federal laws to ensure fewer people are going to be locked up is the worst thing to happen to this country since Gray v. Virginia. In fact, Bob Coleman expended a lot of time in his announcement address with regards to crime-and-punishment; particularly, Coleman pointed out how his mandatory sentencing laws (regarded as the harshest in the country by my state governor; no bleeding heart himself) should be federally mandated throughout America. So what did the strict constructionist Democrats of Mississippi do when they heard this blatant attack on a state's right to govern internal law-and-order...

...they cheered wildly of course.

Furthermore, Governor Coleman wisely decided to give his own little titbit of wisdom on the current opposition marches to the statute controversy currently brewing up in Georgia;

"You know, I, like all of you, understand that John Carson was no great man. However, no matter where his personal morality led him during his life, his rhetorical morality - what he said - remains as important today as it was back then. The disrespect many in Atlanta are currently showing one of America's presidents, whilst encouraged by the Constitution, is led to an increase in radical and uncivil behaviour in that state capital..."​

After those brilliant, insightful, and downright progressive remarks, the audience applauded heavily with a whip and holla; the hundreds of whites and three blacks in the audience clapping and nodding their heads along to the governor's bizarrely fiery Mississippi monotone. It's so strange to think right now, especially if one's living outside the Deep South, but this man's currently the front-runner or the Democratic presidential nomination; in terms of the presidential election, Gallup, not two weeks ago, put Bob Coleman at 36% to George King at 40%, with 24% unsure at this time. Those numbers speak volumes about where America is at this point in time; the VP of a wildly successful administration - an administration that had seen seven years of un-interrupted economic growth, that ended the bloodiest war in American history since Colombia, that has seen bill-after-bill pass through Congress - holds only a 4% lead over Bob Coleman, a man who's policies in his home state had led to press sources like Reuters, or hell, Everson, to proclaim him, and I'm wildly paraphrasing here, "the least colour blind, demagogic, and blatantly heartless governors currently serving in the United States".

Some of my good friends and party colleagues here in Alabama have asked me whether I believe the small gap between the currently leading Democratic and Republican candidates may be due to the fact that Vice President King is African-American. As much as I'd hate to admit it (and to be honest, at the time I was asked I didn't), but I do believe that it does have something to do with King's race; perhaps not much, but as the past few years of constant misogyny and sexism against Dillon have proven, this country hasn't come very far in the last forty years in regards to gender, so why would race be any different? I know I truly shouldn't project the views of my state (which really is an outlier, matched only by Mississippi) onto the rest of America, but after six-and-a-half years of a successful Dillon presidency, perhaps the most forward-thinking and productive administrations despite Democratic foot-dragging and general opposition, I just have a general feeling that Americans will not be so hasty to vote for King as they did Dillon. For one, Dillon had the benefit of running for office at a time in which the Democrats weren't all that popular with the American people, and though Dillon is centre-left, she didn't really broadcast her message for progress as much as King's been doing over the last year-or-so now.

Also, to to fair, King does have some fairly heavy baggage that Dillon really didn't have back in 2008 (despite the whole 'being a woman' that is). I have a fairly good feeling that the Democrats are going to hit hard against King in all elections (not just in the presidential, but the congressional as well) for his role in the Aramco Scandal, flip-flopping on the War in Turkey (which, I must admit, am still bitter about), and general 'weakness' of this administration in regards to foreign policy (North China and Turkey in particular). The first point, I can clearly see working; many people are bitter about that whole affair and King's ambivalence towards it hasn't earned him any friends over the years, which also doesn't help the cause of the Republican Party due to Bob Coleman being one of King's most vocal critics on the matter. The second point links into the third, though is markedly different; I'm not going to lie, during his years in the house, King did waffle on a number of very important issues (the Bush tax hikes, the Turkish War, environmental protections), and a Democrat like Coleman, despite his flaws, I fear may win some measure of support for his rock-solid beliefs and refusal to flip on many issues. On the third point, whilst I disagree (Dillon after all did approve bombing the remaining insurgents in Turkey and escalating the boycott on North China), it's important to remember public image is more important than actual policies and many do not see the Republicans as strong on the international scene as they actually are.

Beyond those, it's also important to consider that other candidates have announced either their intention in running for their party nomination, or at least expressed some sort of interest in the venture. I believe several governors and about half-a-dozen senators are suspected for wanting to run or forming 'exploratory committees' to see if it's possible to win a nomination (though from where I'm standing right now, many in the Republican party who would probably want to run will most likely not manage to get very far; either in the nomination or their future careers). For the hell of it, let's just do a brief run-down on the major candidates who've actually announced their campaigns thus far;


REPUBLICAN NOMINATION
George King
(55 years old; from California)
- Vice President (2009 - Present), US Representative for California (1989 - 2009);
- Currently believed to be the front-runner for the Republican nomination;
- Leans towards the centre on most issues, though is vocal about action on climate change;
- Ran for President in 2008 and came second in the balloting; was chosen as VP by Dillon.​

Andrew McNair (62 years old; from Montana)
- Secretary of Agriculture (2013 - Present), US Senator for Montana (1990 - 2009);
- Currently polling second amongst Republicans for the nomination;
- Believes in 'soft-isolation' and wants to the international community engage more in diplomacy;
- Is a classicalist in many senses, though has fought with President Dillon on prison reform.​

James Schafer (51 years old; from Washington)
- US Representative for Washington (2007 - Present);
- Though polling far behind other candidates, maintains a strong following in Washington;
- Opposed King's nomination as VP in 2008 over the Aramco Scandal;
- Similar to McNair, is a soft classicalist, though also supports action on climate change like King.​

Mae Williams (53 years old; from California)
- Radio host from California (1991 - Present);
- Polls well amongst older, more conservative Republicans, though near the bottom for everyone else;
- Has criticised the President for her action in regards to the 55/15 tax hike and prison reform;
- Has been fighting since the 90's to "get the Party back on a conservative track".​


DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION
Bob Coleman
(57 years old; from Mississippi)
- Governor of Mississippi (2008 - Present), State Senator for Mississippi (2001 - 2008);
- Has been polling ahead of other candidates even before announcing his run;
- The brother of James Coleman and worked close with him during his administration;
- Is a staunch social conservative and opposes much-if-not-all of the Dillon administration's successes.​

Jesse Hartfield (53 years old; from Kansas)
- Secretary of the Interior (2001 - 2005), US Senator for Kansas (1979 - 1997), US Representative for Kansas (1969 - 1979);
- Currently polling close to Coleman, and was one of the first to announce a run for the nomination;
- Of a more populist bent, has not entirely opposed Dillon's popular reform measures;
- Still personally opposes abortion and gay marriage, but is not opposed to state's legislating them.​

Will Sacco (48 years old; from New York)
- Governor of New York (2011 - Present), New York Attorney General (2005 - 2011);
- The most serious left-leaning Democrat in the field, and is polling decently, especially among youths;
- Is running ostensibly to return the Democrats to the "Party of Roosevelt";
- Attacked Republicans in New York for opposing his measures to cut down on carbon emissions.​

John Davis (50 years old; from Tennessee)
- Senator from Tennessee (2001 - Present);
- Son of 1984 Democratic Nominee Bill Davis (and we all know how that turned out);
- Is a fiscal conservative who opposes Dillon's 55/15 taxes, though has supported her regulation of several industries;
- Is the most vocally hawkish (just behind Coleman), and supports re-intervention in Turkey;
- Like his father, is vigorously opposed to immigration (particularly from Mexico).​

Elizabeth Anheuser (53 years old; from South Carolina)
- US Representative for South Carolina (2005 - Present);
- Probably as good a polling pseudo-left-leaning Southern Democrat you're going to find;
- Though deeply religious, is opposed to a federal anti-gay marriage amendment;
- Economically tied to the Old Left and has a certain populist appeal among both whites and minorities;
- Opposes federal government excess however, and agrees that welfare/benefits need to derive from state governments.​

Those are just the basics so far (there are a number of other insignificant candidates that I've glossed over heavily); however, I am prepared to write a more detailed version in a more distant future post once/if further candidates come to the fore (particularly in the made scramble that appears to be forming around the Democratic Nomination). Just try and remember though; it's about a year-and-a-half left until the presidential election, a lot may or may not change in the very near future (did anyone honestly expect Daniel Bremer of all people to get the nomination back in 2012), so I'll try and keep as close an eye on changes events as possible over the next few days (it's an intractable law of the universe that Bob Coleman's going to say something intractably stupid at some point in this race). Until next time, I wish any readers a good day, and an even better night.
 
Last edited:
AWESOME TL!

Though, I do have 2 questions

1. Whats the POD?
2. What are the party's ideologies?
Because I honestly don't want to reveal too much too fast, you're just going to have to wait till this world slowly fleshes itself out.

In regards to the POD though, I am willing to give you a fairly obvious clue; 'Palmetto'.
 
Top