Good rundown on the myths surrounding the GOP’s flirtation with racism
More to the point, judging present day Republicans and Democrats by votes which occurred forty years ago ignores the vast changes in the political landscape that have happened since that time. Does Nixon’s “Southern strategy” ring a bell? The Reagan Democrats? Since 1964, African-American and other minorities have voted heavily with the Democratic party, so much so in fact that last year Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, apologized to an NAACP group, saying “By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out….Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.” I wonder how Jackson would explain several states from the formerly “Solid South” suddenly switching from voting Democratic to supporting Goldwater in 1964? And exactly how many Southern states did Goldwater win? How many Northern states?
Conservatives are also bloody wrong on the separation of church and state.
This is my favorite topic. Liberals vs. conservatives in the old South. They will bend into every conceivable position to avoid admitting the truth: that liberals were right and conservatives were wrong, and LIBERALS WON! Bring it on, conservatives!
This is your brain:
More to the point, judging present day Republicans and Democrats by votes which occurred forty years ago ignores the vast changes in the political landscape that have happened since that time.
This is your brain on Kool-aid:
I ll challenge anyone here to name any ten prominent supporters of segregation in the old south and then tell me how many of them were Republicans.
Any questions?
Your referenced article says,
“the RNC chief admits that Republicans were ‘trying to benefit politically from racial polarization’.”
Is there any honest Democrat who will admit the same thing? Because if it weren’t true, you guys wouldn’t spend millions of dollars every election year trying to convince Blacks that Republicans are racists who want to strip them of their right to vote, steal their property, and send them back to the plantation stuffing cotton into gunny sacks.
And I’ll challenge anyone here to name any ten prominent supporters of segregation in the old south and then tell me how many of them were Republicans.
Heck, I’ll even start the list:
Strom Thurmond (D, later ‘dixiecrat’, later R)
Jesse Helms (D, later R)
Orville Faubus (D)
Albert Gore, Sr. (D)
Sam Ervin (D)
William Fullbright (D)
George Wallace (D)
Lester Maddox (D)
Leander Perez, Sr. (D)
James Eastland (D)
Bull Connor (D) (he was also a member of the DNC and had close ties to the KKK)
Really great heritage of tolerance and equality you have there.
Using the same sophisticated data manipulation techniques found in your referenced article, Oliver, I’ll conclude that a Democrat from the South was far more likely to support racial segregation that a Republican.
IT…. BEGINS!!!! But let’s start this off on the right foot by saying that you, Mike, are truly a fucking idiot if you think you’re suprising anyone with your shocking revelation that the South used to be run by conservative, racist Democrats. Try again, please.
Mikey, Mikey Mikey….
There was a big difference between Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats. There has been a long history of southerners claiming to be Democrats, but disagreeing with 99.9% of the Democratic platform. Case in point, Zell Miller. I don’t think anybody in their right mind would claim he is a representative of Democratic ideals. Most Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights later changed parties The split in the party was evident in the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. While no Southern Republican from either the House or the Senate voted in favor of the act, there were a few Southern Democrats who voted for it.In the north, far more Republicans voted against it, then did Democrats…..
With that said, it is truly a shame that anybody voted against it. No matter what anybody says about states rights etc. it was a racially motivated act of cowardice. It is also a shame that anybody uses racial motivators as a political stunt. Neither party should do it. Instead of debating which party is racist, why dont we concentrate our efforts on making racism a thing of the past. Why dont we put our energy toward creating a free and open society where nobody is discriminated against because of race, creed, gender,economic class or sexual orientation. Lets have a society where our children dont learn discrimination from our government. But hey, thats just my $0.02
WASHINGTON (AP) – House Republican leaders on Wednesday postponed a vote on renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act after GOP lawmakers complained it unfairly singles out nine Southern states for federal oversight.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Laurie Kellman, Associated Press
From BlackAmericaWeb.com News
Not exactly a “refusal to renew”.
And this is why blacks vote for Democratics, because people like you tell lies about Republicans.
Mike, read the link, then you won’t seem so stupid. The southern Dems had many racists. When LBJ signed in the Civil Rights bill, he knew he would lose them – but it was President Kennedy’s legacy and the right thing to do. The Democrats did lose them, to the Republican party who with the transition to Goldwater then Nixon became the party that embraced racial hostility especially towards blacks (unless you’re idiotically contending that Ken Mehlman acknowledged – not apologized – the GOP’s long past of using the southern strategy). Democrats, on the other hand, took an electoral hit in order to become the party that welcomed civil rights with an open hand.
That’s what leads to your next contention – the moronic implication that us blacks are just so dumb and the Democrats “got to scares us fo’ sho’”. Black Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic because for all of the party’s faults, it is the one that supports black America because its the right thing to do morally. Of all the groups Democrats need to reach out to, it has to spend the least on blacks because we are the backbone of the party. Without us there are no Democrats. The Republicans think they can sell us a bill of goods with candidates like Steele or perhaps buy us off, but their legislative history (like this week’s refusal to renew the voting rights act) speaks louder than the entire noise machine about what the GOP really thinks about blacks and other minorities.
How is that a lie, Frank? They refused to renew the act after the data has been in their hands forever. Somehow they can jam through legislation telling gays not to marry but renewing the voting rights act all of a sudden provokes a flurry of head scratching.
Here’s another point of view:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15805
Yes, I read that interview in the craziest – even for a con – publication. I’m not sure what you’re getting at. There’s no shift of blacks to the GOP, even though blacks as a whole are conservative. If anything in post-Katrina America, the Dems will have an even larger black constituency.
Frank, in response to the article you linked to..
I have the utmost respect for anybody who refuses to choose a political way of thought based on their parents. However, he wasnt very convincing. He had to go all the way back to the 19th century to support his argument. Although I do understand that, as this was a short interview, he had limited time to express his views. What really cracked me up though was how in the same sentence he claimed love for homosexuals, but still denied them the right to get married. Kind of like an abusive husband claiming he loves his wife, but she had those punches coming. I just dont get it, but i guess that is for another thread
No, Frank, i believe it was analogous, not comparative.
Man you righties are obtuse.
How is that a lie, Frank?
Ok, gross distortion, then…
A postponement is not a refusal, even on Krypton.
He claimed love for homosexuals, but still denied them the right to get married. Kind of like an abusive husband claiming he loves his wife, but she had those punches coming.
a) He didn’t “deny” them the right to marry — he said he didn’t think they should.
b) Are you comparing opposition to gay marriage to spousal abuse?
Man, you lefties are intense.
Oliver, does it really make a difference what publication the interview was in? Did Hawkins ask questions? Did Bohannon answer them?
There s no shift of blacks to the GOP, even though blacks as a whole are conservative. The point is that your contradictory statement is evidence that you are wrong.
Let me put the question this way: How long will the majority of black voters follow the Democratics further and further to the left?
And what is this “post – Katrina America” nonsense? Please don’t even try to play the race card with regards to a storm that killed more whites as a percentage of the population than blacks.
Yes, it’s not fair to single out those states that have practiced generations of unconstitutional discrimination!
To quote you
And of course if duros62 says it s wrong with no support, documentation or evidence, then it must be wrong.
Of course you can cite support and evidence that Oliver has ever said “blacks don t vote for Democratics because they re dumb.”
Somehow, i don’t think those folks will really count that much at the polls.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
OK, fine, analogous?
I was referring to Oliver’s playing the race card.
As a Democratic, he’s got race – card playing skills.
He keeps saying blacks don’t vote for Democratics because they’re dumb.
But they’re not smart enough to see the non – racism of the Republicans.
Why?
Because the Democratics are yelling, “The Republicans won’t let us give you stuff!”, so blacks don’t hear Republicans saying, “You don’t need that stuff!”
That s what leads to your next contention – the moronic implication that us blacks are just so dumb and the Democrats got to scares us fo sho . Black Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic because for all of the party s faults, it is the one that supports black America because its the right thing to do morally.
Oliver Willis Jun 30th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Right, Quaker, there was only discrimination in those states
May I split a hair (since you so love to do it yourself)? The discrimination they practiced in those states was not unconstitutional, even in part, until 1954 — hardly generations.
Care to argue about the meaning of discrimination?
Or unconstitutional?
Or perhaps generations?
Well, now, to be fair, I haven’t been coming here as long as you. That quote was a year ago, and it doesn’t say that Oliver thinks blacks are dumb. the operative point is this: That s what leads to your next contention –
(Y)our..contention, Frank. (Ok, i don’t know if it was your contention or someone else, but it was not Oliver’s contention)
I think you’re looking at the world backwards, Frank.
The discrimination didn’t become unconstitutional when the Supremes said so. The court examined existing practices and found that they didn’t measure up.
That quote was a year ago
Slow down, Duros.
It’s a few comments up: June 30, 2006
Quaker, you’ve been watching too many lawyer shows. There are no ex post facto laws in America.
That means that when something is declared illegal, or unconstitutional, it is illegal or unconstitutional now.
Didn’t you realize I was being sarcastic?
Incidentally, why don’t you address the point that we would be hard pressed to find a state where there was no discrimination of some kind.
So, I ask you again: Why single out 9 southern states?
The Civil War, and Reconstruction, are over.
Why single out 9 southern states? Because racism isn’t over.
According to you, Oliver, racism isn’t over anywhere.
And, to the extent that there is any racism at all, I agree that it is practically everywhere. I just am sure that we would disagree as to how much, and what places.
And that’s when discrimination ended?
Haw!
Quaker, stop being ridiculous.
You had 43 minutes to read
And you accuse me of offering specious arguments?
The reasons for “singling out 9 states” lies in the well-documented history of discrimination in voting in those states.
Pretend all you like that those states are no different from the other 41. It just isn’t so.
Apparently, the Republicans and I disagree.
Ain’t democracy grand?
That quote was a year ago
Slow down, Duros.
It s a few comments up: June 30, 2006
My apologies. I was wrong. And so were you.
I agree that it is practically everywhere. I just am sure that we would disagree as to how much, and what places.
Apparently, it is in 9 southern states.
Haw!
duros62: Please, please, please don’t imitate that annoying “Haw” exclamation. It sounds like something out of Raymond Massey’s Abe Lincoln in Illinois
And, if you want to believe there is no discrimination in the other 41 states, you can if you want.
People believe there are dead aliens at Roswell, NM; and that we’re descended from monkeys.
So now discrimination is a matter of faith, is that it?
Whatever, Frank.