Equal Polarization, My Ass
Tweet
One of my new favorite phrases is “not tethered to facts.” That comes from ABC reporter Jake Tapper doing a write-up of a new ad campaign from the conservative Americans For Prosperity targeting President Obama. It’s a nice way of saying “you lying ass.”
The phrase “not tethered to facts” came to mind when reading this Rick Moran piece lamenting the supposed equal polarization of the two major political parties in America. Bonus points to Moran for writing this post at PJ Media (aka Pajamas Media aka Open Source Media), which is a cesspool of conservative nonsense.
The idea that both parties/movements in America are equally extreme is a well-worn media meme and one that the right often rides. It also happens to be quite untrue. In reality, we have a right dominated by the hard right and a left created out of a coalition of the hard left, center-left, and centrists (who often echo the center-right). Look at the standard-bearers for both parties. Republicans picked George W. Bush, an evangelical conservative who appeared to honestly believe all the trickle down and privatization nonsense he was peddling. Democrats picked Barack Obama, who pushed a pay freeze of federal salaries while passing an economic stimulus bill that contained a considerable amount of tax cuts.
You don’t even have to go to the presidential level. In congress, Republicans have a Kentucky conservative leading them in the Senate along with John Boehner in the House, who thunderously opposed health care and subjected the traditional raising of the debt ceiling to an exercise in tea party hostage-taking. Go back further and you’ve got Sen. Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schiavo over video tape and Tom DeLay jamming right-leaning legislation through the House.
On the Democratic side, while Pelosi is a “San Francisco liberal,” her top lieutenant has been Steny Hoyer — a moderate Democrat. When Democrats ran the House, contrary to conservative rhetoric they didn’t pass socialism. Since they’ve taken back the House, Boehner and Co. have passed far more legislation governing women’s bodies than there was equally socially liberal legislation passed under Pelosi’s leadership.
Senate Democrats are led by Harry Reid, a moderate on most issues who appointed conservative-leaning Democrats like Kent Conrad and Max Baucus to lead important committees. This led, in the case of health care reform, to a lot of the progressive-leaning legislation being ripped out in the final bill.
The two parties and movements are not equally extreme. The right is rhetorically led by Rush Limbaugh, a minority bashing advocate of the harshest brand of conservative economic and security policy. Even the top liberal voices in the media — people like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, etc. — practice at best FDR-style liberalism which isn’t nearly as radical as what Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and company say on a day-to-day basis.
The thesis is simply untrue. We have a center-left movement/party on one side and a right-wing party/movement on the other.
213 Responses to “Equal Polarization, My Ass”
Journalist Marie Colvin Killed In Syria
Obama To Congress: Drop Corporate Tax Rate By 7%
Meet Rebecca Williams, The FBI’s Stripper Turned “Trailer Park Mata Hari”
VA Gov. McDonnell Backs Off Support Of Forced Vaginal Probe Law
Santorum A Birther? Got Briefing From Conspiracy Sheriff Arpaio
Billionaire Sheldon Adelson Adds $26 Billion To Fortune Under Obama, Complains Of Socialism
Kardashian – Endorsed QuickTrim Diet Pill May Face Class Action Lawsuit
Virginia Still Within Reach For Obama
Porn Displayed On Best Buy TVs Via Wifi
Latest Entries
VIDEO: Who Doesn’t Need A Gun That Can Take Out A Helicopter?
The Tea Party Loves Socialism, Fakes Otherwise
Conservatives Dead Set On Repeating 2004
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
You can certainly find left wing comments to blog posts that are beyond the pale. For GOP craziness, you can get it from elected (or previously elected) officials.
Both parties media outlets jobs are to derail and impede progress of the other party. They do a good job of distracting of the American public, but people are starting to see the game for what it really is, divide and conquer.
Matthew_Hubbard says: “You can certainly find left wing comments to blog posts that are beyond the pale. For GOP craziness, you can get it from elected (or previously elected) officials.”
You just won this thread. Good job.
There are obviously crazies on both sides, but the Republicans elect there’s.
TYT talked about a study that showed how Republicans moved to the right six times faster than house Democrats moved to the left, so it is absolutely not true both sides are become more extreme at the same rate. The same was true in the Senate, albeit by a smaller margin.
Mr. Strowbridge,
I really don’t see that the Democrats have moved to the left. I see the policies now espoused (with some exceptions) as being equivalent to any of the Taft, Eisenhower, or Nixon Administrations. I see the Democrats as a center-right party. Which leaves the Republicans to the right of Goldwater.
Suicidal, I will take the proposition that the Democrats do not have any media outlets & thus do not attempt to derail the Republicans. When Jon Stewart can read the official Bush announcements on the Iraq War & have the audience in stitches, as he did in about 2006, The Republicans have done quite well enough derailing themselves.
Their crazies formed their own party for chrissakes. Rhymes with pee for you slowpokes.
If a liberal ever ran for president, he/she would get my vote.
Can’t complain about my rep, Lynn Woolsey, an actual progressive, but she’s retiring. No doubt it will be filled by another real liberal.
Woolsey is my rep too, and she will be missed. I have little doubt that her likely successor, Norm Solomon, will do a fine job given his progressive bona fides, but he’s got big shoes to fill.
Rumsfeld sure hung out with a lot of scumbags, didn’t he? First Saddam and then a fat junkie.
db says:
“Mr. Strowbridge,
I really don’t see that the Democrats have moved to the left.”
I should point out the study I mentioned was from the 1970s to today. In the 1970s, there were still some significant crossover between the two parties. And in some issues, the Democrats have moved to the left. … I’m having trouble thinking of many. … Gay rights. … Now I’m drawing a blank.
Mr. Strowbridge,
Indeed, I can see Presidents Eisenhower & Nixon promoting the very policies proposed by President Obama, with the exception of DADT. Which is why I’m amused at the current Republican claims of “class war”, “socialism”, “radical”, and Congressman West’s, “dependence society”.
http://youtu.be/sToOvR1mkeo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sToOvR1mkeo
The beginning of the video is kinda crappy, but this is Maher’s take.
If you think you stand in the middle ideologically (as you all do), and think that every “reasonable person” stands behind you (as you all do), then, of course, you think that you are moderate, and only a handful of folks to your left are “extreme”.
But how about this? Of all the people who identify themselves ideologically, nearly twice as many call themselves conservatives as call themselves liberal LINK.
That being the case, I would suggest that on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being “far, far left”; and 10 being “far, far right” what you describe as “the left” probably occupies positions 2 through 4, and “the right” occupies 6 through 9.
If you’re trying to say “Your crazy guys are crazier than our crazy guys, then you have to choose between this guy, and
this guy
But how about this? Of all the people who identify themselves ideologically, nearly twice as many call themselves conservatives as call themselves liberal
How about this, social conservatives tend to be low in intelligence:
Frank DiSalle says: “But how about this? Of all the people who identify themselves ideologically, nearly twice as many call themselves conservatives as call themselves liberal…”
But if you ask them what individual positions they support, they tend to support the liberal position more than the conservative one. How many people support taxing the rich? Taxing investments like regular income? The estate tax? Protecting SS and Medicare, even if it means higher taxes. Spending more on education? Reducing the size of the military? Universal healthcare?
You are getting hung up on labels, but liberal policies are more popular than conservative policies are.
Dark Avenger :: I really don’t care what that guy thinks … And you shouldn’t either.
It is not the subject of this thread, nor is it relevant. Nice cherry-picked cut and paste, though!
Strowbridge : Without evidence that people expressing their opinions are at least aware of the substance of the policies, let alone the consequences (unintended or otherwise), your statement is meaningless.
EX: How many people who support taxing the rich, have a percentage in mind? What is that percentage? How much does a person have to receive in a year to be considered rich ?
But what about this: When was the last time you saw a survey that asked if the government has too many employees? Or do you know why Federal employees don’t get laid off during recessions?
When was the last time you saw a survey that asked, “What does the Department of Education do?” “What does the Department of Energy do?”
In other words, you would know more about what people thought of conservative policies if people were asked, AND THE PRESS REPORTED IT.
Don’t forget gay marriage, C.S.
Without evidence that people expressing their opinions are at least aware of the substance of the policies, let alone the consequences (unintended or otherwise), your statement is meaningless.
But people being unaware of what “liberal” and “conservative” actually entail is perfectly fine, as that data points fits into your worldview. Do you even listen to yourself?
Zython, I take no pleasure in constantly reminding you that you are a wiseass – a rude, poorly educated, sophomoric, clownish kid. But you should re-read your first sentence.
When people describe themselves as conservative or liberal, it is safe to assume that they subscribe to a set of beliefs that are agreed by most to be conservative or liberal, perhaps with the exception of a few. No one is arguing that people who define themselves as conservative or liberal agree on what that means. If you look at my example it is quite clear that what I am saying is that when questioned about policy, one needs to understand what the policy is …
Example: Do you agree that Palestinians should have their own homeland, a nation called “Palestine”? Sounds good, right? Who would say, “No”? The Palestinians , that’s who ! Because they want Israel to be their homeland! Get the point now, Sparky ?
Frank,
I think you’ve nailed it.
Terms like liberal and conservative mean what the speaker/writer/hearer wants them to mean. Which makes the current Fox label of President Obama as socialist/liberal/radical even more absurd. So also Former Speaker Gingrich’s “Moderate Mitt”. Absurd labeling without definition.
It is well known in polling circles that you can frame the question to get the answer desired. “Does the Federal Government have too many employees” is designed to elicit a “Yes” answer, but phrase the question as “Should the Federal Government cut back on inspections of meat & poultry?” and you’ll likely get “No” answers.
Equally I suspect the Israel/Palestine questions hinges on where Palestine ends & Israel begins. I doubt the Palestinians want to live in a State called Israel.
“When people describe themselves as conservative or liberal, it is safe to assume that they subscribe to a set of beliefs that are agreed by most to be conservative or liberal” I disagree. Because, as you pointed out earlier, the labels are meaningless. Then while you have 60% of the responders calling themselves “conservative”; voter registrations still show 40%-50% of the populace calling themselves Democrats. So do you accept my earlier contention that the democrats are a Center/Right Party?
As a liberal, my side was on the correct side of a) ending slavery b) women and blacks getting to vote c) the Civil Rights act d) knowing that the occupation of Iraq would be a disaster.
Objective truth for ya.
Frank DiSalle says: “When people describe themselves as conservative or liberal, it is safe to assume that they subscribe to a set of beliefs that are agreed by most to be conservative or liberal…”
No it is not.
It is not safe to assume that, especially since we’ve have 30 years of people on the right using liberal as an insult. In the healthcare debate, we have people standing up and telling politician to keep government out of medicare, and the crowd would cheer.
Did you know that when prohibition was voted on, a lot of people who supported the plan didn’t realize it would ban beer and wine? At the time, a lot of people thought it would only ban distilled alcohol. If you asked people if they supported prohibition, most would say yes. If you asked people if they thought beer should be legal, most would say yes. Which is correct? They can’t both be correct. One question is about a label, while the other is about a policy.
The analogy hold here with liberal vs. conservative as labels, compared to liberal vs. conservative policies on taxes, social safety net, gay rights, etc.
Dark Avenger :: I really don’t care what that guy thinks … And you shouldn’t either.
It is not the subject of this thread, nor is it relevant. Nice cherry-picked cut and paste, though!
I’m glad I have your approval, you senile stinking lich.
But thanks for giving me another laugh at your expense, Renfro, because your socially conservative, factually challenged self is a prime example of what they’re talking about in that study:
But isn’t saying a populace is right or left of center like Lake Woebegone’s claim that all it’s children are above average? Isn’t the center the point where you have equal numbers on both sides?
“Isn’t the center the point where you have equal numbers on both sides?”
Only if the spectrum in question is defined entirely by the population your examining. In the case of politics, it’s not, really. Actually, the recent back and forth about Paul Krugman’s blogging style made me wonder if what we’re seeing in politics lately is two sides taking different approaches to governance. I’m not saying I have determined it to be true, I’ve just been wondering. It seems Republicans have fully embraced what Noah refers to as the “Hegelian method of argumentation”:
While democrats take a more (but not entirely) “Humean” method:
But, as Noah points out:
The more I think about it, the more this idea seems to, at least roughly, fit what I see going on in Washington.
Interesting post Buzz,
But I’m not sure there’s any discussion or debate of facts in DC these days. The Republicans oppose anything supported by President Obama. In some cases directly contradictory to what was said just yesterday. (Libya)
Equally what goes on in DC is filtered through the Fox lens of quick sound-bites and slanted coverage for consumption in the rest of the country. Who has time for a serious debate of the various options in Health Care Reform? So much quicker & easier to announce that the Obama Plan will establish “death panels”. This too gets (almost) funny as the same guest will urge “tax cuts”, bemoan the “deficit”, and demand a “strong military” without ever acknowledging the interrelation of the issues & the impossibility of achieving all.
Oh, fair enough db, I didn’t mean to imply that both sides were following an agreed upon set of rules, as in the courts. But just as a general approach, it seems Republicans are going about issues in a completely self-serving, partisan manner while Democrats more or less waffle between doing the same, and offering compromise. The temptation is alluring to compromise, since that’s what common sense and voter polling (perhaps contradicted by voter behavior, though) says they should be doing.
However, that approach does provide a weaker opponent, willing to play by different rules, an opportunity to exert more power than they otherwise should have. That said, I can’t claim to have any suggestions as to what Democrats can or should do about it… it may just be up to voters to get both sides playing the same game.
I call myself conservative but I’ll be damned if I’ll ever vote for a repub again
“Democrats picked Barack Obama, who…
- was the most liberal senator in all of congress at the time he was elected POTUS
- immediately pushed for the most radical and leftist changes to healthcare…ever
- has pushed for every kind of green energy model and cap-n-trade policy while POTUS
- acknowledged and praised Occupy Wall Street protesters while dismissing the entire Tea Party
- works with the SEIU, a far-Left union organization and has given them numerous Obamacare waivers
- is supported by 12% Repubs and 86% Dems, most polarizing figures in POTUS history
- has admitted to being heavily influenced by radically leftist thinkers such as terrorist Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky
- sat down with radically leftist bloggers such as OW while POTUS
Nope, no polarization here.
MrGreyGhost says:
“immediately pushed for the most radical and leftist changes to healthcare…ever”
His policy was to the RIGHT of what the American people wanted. Medicare for all was polling in the 60s and 70s.
“has pushed for every kind of green energy model and cap-n-trade policy while POTUS”
First of all, citation? Secondly, Cap-n-Trade was a Republican plan. Thirdly, are you really this fucking stupid?
“acknowledged and praised Occupy Wall Street protesters”
So have many of the Republican presidential candidates.
“while dismissing the entire Tea Party”
So have most independents.
“works with the SEIU, a far-Left union organization”
Again I must ask, are you really this fucking stupid?
“is supported by 12% Repubs and 86% Dems, most polarizing figures in POTUS history”
How many Republicans were asking for his birth certificate? Just because brainwashed / braindead Republicans hate him, doesn’t mean he’s a polarizing figure. It means these morons are spending too much time watching Fox News.
“has admitted to being heavily influenced by radically leftist thinkers such as terrorist Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky”
Without going to Wikipedia, you probably can’t give five facts about either man.
Without going to Wikipedia, you probably can’t give five facts about either man.
I’m more interested in seeing where he’s admitted to being “heavily influenced” by either man.
When Ghost posts a list of “facts” without a single citation, you know that shit’s just got to be true!*
Speaking of Alinsky, Ghost unwittingly throws the tea party under the bus
Frank DiSalle: Strowbridge : Without evidence that people expressing their opinions are at least aware of the substance of the policies, let alone the consequences (unintended or otherwise), your statement is meaningless.
Yet you claimed some significance to more people self-identifying as “conservative” than “liberal” without any evidence that the folks questioned know what those terms mean or what policies fall under those labels.
Double standard, anyone?
Frank DiSalle: When people describe themselves as conservative or liberal, it is safe to assume that they subscribe to a set of beliefs that are agreed by most to be conservative or liberal, perhaps with the exception of a few. No one is arguing that people who define themselves as conservative or liberal agree on what that means. If you look at my example it is quite clear that what I am saying is that when questioned about policy, one needs to understand what the policy is …
So when people are asked if they are conservative or liberal we can be comfortable that they know what those terms mean, what policies they support presumably. But when they’re asked about a policy, we can’t be sure they “are at least aware of the substance of the policies”.
Frank logic makes my head hurt.
db: It is well known in polling circles that you can frame the question to get the answer desired. “Does the Federal Government have too many employees” is designed to elicit a “Yes” answer, but phrase the question as “Should the Federal Government cut back on inspections of meat & poultry?” and you’ll likely get “No” answers.
Exactly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLhFXkvugLM (key part starts at 1:00)
“First of all, citation?…”
Sure.
“Secondly, Cap-n-Trade was a Republican plan….”
Liar.
“His policy was to the RIGHT of what the American people wanted…”
Woah! Strowbridge lies again!” Let me guess you’re only allowed to watch one your house: that truth-teller of truth-tellers MSNBC!
“How many Republicans were asking for his birth certificate?…”
And who started the birther issue again Strowbridge? Here’s a clue: it wasn’t a Republican.
^Let me guess you’re only allowed to watch one channel in your house…
C.S.Strowbridge: “First of all, citation?…”
MrGreyGhost: “Sure.”
You are a moron. You can’t shout “Solyndra!” and expect anyone besides your fellow brain-dead Republicans to buy into it. Obama is increasing domestic oil drilling. You are wrong. You are a fucking idiot.
C.S.Strowbridge: “Secondly, Cap-n-Trade was a Republican plan….”
MrGreyGhost: “Liar.”
Again, you are a fucking moron. Cap-n-Trade, like the Health Care Mandate, was a Republican idea from years ago. Just because they’ve decided to reject it in an attempt to block everything Obama does, doesn’t change the fact.
C.S.Strowbridge: “His policy was to the RIGHT of what the American people wanted…”
MrGreyGhost: “Woah! Strowbridge lies again!”
How have you not accidentally killed yourself yet?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html#
“…62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system.”
“And who started the birther issue again Strowbridge?”
And who keeps bringing it up years later? You tried to make it mainstream?
It’s a little wonky, but there is a book out that answers a lot of the questions posed here via a rigorous academic method: ”Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches,” by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University. Its full of stats regarding the ideological shift, so you don’t really have to guess or go by anecdotals.
Long –short. Dem legislators have moved left. Republicans have moved even more right.
Here’s Paul Krugman’s recommendation (they also focus on income inequality)
Jaim,
From the book referenced above:
http://www.voteview.com/MPRchapter2_rev3.pdf
- acknowledged and praised Occupy Wall Street protesters while dismissing the entire Tea Party
The former who understood what caused the economic issues and wanted them fixed. The latter, which wanted to make things worse.
- sat down with radically leftist bloggers such as OW while POTUS
Rather he talk to “goat fucking child molester”* Erick Erickson or child stalker Michelle Malkin?
*His words, not mine.
- has admitted to being heavily influenced by radically leftist thinkers such as terrorist Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky
You have no idea who those people are and what they stand for, do you?
Woah! Strowbridge lies again!
Slight tip, when calling someone a liar, you MIGHT want to make sure you yourself aren’t lying in the process. I know as a conservative, it’s in your very nature to lie continuously, but try not to do it so blatantly.
Liar.
Nope.
Seriously, though, it’s amazing seeing so many conservatives support socialized pollution.
Perseverance is only a virtue if you actually stand a chance of succeeding. Otherwise, it’s just sad.
Yes Manju, Jesse Helms was the true champion of the civil rights movement.
Fuckwit.
“Ghosite”,
Coming late to this as I wasn’t here last night.
Frank pointed out how meaningless the left-right labels are & you jump in with at least 9 labels in 10 sentences. If you count “green” as a label you get 10. If you’d like to take the position that the labels matter that’s one thing; but it looks like you’ve ignored the entire thread previous.
I’ll argue that statements like,
“- was the most liberal senator in all of congress at the time he was elected POTUS
- immediately pushed for the most radical and leftist changes to healthcare…ever”
are essentially meaningless as “Most Liberal (x)” is something Fox trots out every election “radical and leftist change to health care” were the same arguments used against Medicare.
BTW is the “Tea Party” you assert President Obama ignores, the same “Tea Party” that asserts that he’s a secret Kenyan Muslim who has stolen the election? Funny how that works.
Call me when you want to discuss something concrete. I’ll pass on the sloganeering.
Buzz,
Didn’t mean to be argumentative. Sorry.
“Lefties”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/26/1058554/-Mark-Fiore-Lefties?via=blog_792316
Mr Grey Ghost: “Secondly, Cap-n-Trade was a Republican plan….”
Liar.
Ahem.
Jaim: Yes Manju, Jesse Helms was the true champion of the civil rights movement.
Fuckwit.
No, but Jacob Javits was.
You know, picking an extreme example, which the other person didn’t use, and attempting to use it to dismisstheir claim out of hand really doesn’t work. It only shows you are avoiding actually countering their claim.
And in this instance, Manju has a point. Where civil rights were concerned, in the post-WW2 period Republicans had a better record than Democrats. Southern Democrats were fiercely opposed to civil rights while noted Republicans (Jacob Javits to name one) were supporters.
There has been a notable shift in both parties since 50 years ago and certainly more recent Republicans and Democrats would not fit in with what their parties were. But that doesn’t change which side was actually more in favor of civil rights. Check out the history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example. While Democrats filibustered to stop it, Republicans worked to find a way to get it passed. (Not to say all Democrats were opposed or all Repubs in favor by any means, but the strongest voices on each side were from Dems against and Repubs for.)
The three figures I most see credited with passage of the Act are Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen.
Willie, does that contradict anything I said or counter the point I made?
was the most liberal senator in all of congress at the time he was elected POTUS
And in the two previous years, he was ranked the tenth and sixteenth most liberal member. I suspect that the sudden shift had more to do with politics than agenda; voting consistently with your party is probably a good idea when you’re trying to win the nomination.
immediately pushed for the most radical and leftist changes to healthcare…ever
Which is an odd statement, considering that he passed
the same fucking bill as Romneycare.
has pushed for every kind of green energy model and cap-n-trade policy while POTUS
And your support of “every kind” is a link to “one kind”.
works with the SEIU, a far-Left union organization and has given them numerous Obamacare waivers
And by numerous, you mean:
6. Out of, at the time, 733 companies who applied for (they’re not just handed out, dipshit), and were granted, waivers. So… let’s do the math: it looks like a whopping .81% of waiver recipients were SEIU unions.
Also, 95% of groups who requested waivers received them. And the GAO didn’t find anything wrong with the criteria used to award waivers.
(And, though I can’t locate the link at the moment, the majority- around 45 or so of the 60 total rejections- were to Union requests.
Just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it so, lemming.
has admitted to being heavily influenced by radically leftist thinkers such as terrorist Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky
Again, I’d love to see any citation where he admits to being heavily influenced by Bill Ayers. And the link I posted shows that the tea party is also influenced by Alinsky- so what’s the big deal? Because his book has the word “radical” in it? It’s like getting mad at someone because they apply the principles of Sun Tzu in their business.
Alinsky wrote the manual on mobilizing grassroots efforts. Gingrich should write one about cheating on, and abandoning, sick women. He’s certainly qualified. He could co-author it with John Edwards, if he wasn’t so busy still being respected by Conservatives.
sat down with radically leftist bloggers such as OW while POTUS
OW is “radically leftist”? Hah, I was about to ask if you were a fucking moron, but we both know the answer to that one already, don’t we?
Besides, the White House has certainly hosted… shall we say, “less dignified journalists…
Ghost, Ghost, Ghost- you gotta stop blindly believing those chain e-mails- I know you’re just a dull little lemming who lacks the intellectual capacity to independently verify what your masters tell you, but you’re really embarrassing yourself in front of the grown-ups.
*Looks like a link got erased:
the same fucking bill as Romneycare.
“You are a moron. You can’t shout “Solyndra!”…
Actually I can shout whatever I want. And just because you and your fellow lemmings here don’t like to be reminded of the Obama-supported and utter fail that was Solyndra, an investment in a solar panel co. (i.e. “green”) that cost taxpayers over a half-billion dollars doesn’t mean we cant hammer voters over it till November.
“Cap-n-Trade, like the Health Care Mandate, was a Republican idea…”
Big difference between concept and implementation a-hole (of course, you’re on the same side that says Paul Ryan’s medicare plan “isn’t Medicare” because it changes the rules). Well, Democrat Waxman and Markey’s climate change bill is a hell of lot different from any “idea” Repubs ever conceived, reason being it had little to no impact on world temperatures, was a massive energy tax in disguise that would lead to job losses, income cuts and a sharp left turn toward big government–in other words a radical leftist’s wet dream and thats why the GOP said no to it.
“Frank pointed out how meaningless the left-right labels are & you jump in with at least 9 labels…”
No disrespect to Frank, but since when does he dictate what I say here?
“BTW is the “Tea Party” you assert President Obama ignores, the same “Tea Party” that asserts that he’s a secret Kenyan Muslim….”
Oh right, better to support a violence acquiescing (5,000 arrests and counting), law enforcement hating, sexual assault cesspool, drug-inducing bunch of lefty hypocrites (“we support 1 percenters like Michael Moore”) than millions of people who peacefully marched on your front lawn calling for less govt and more jobs.
“Which is an odd statement, considering that he passed
the same fucking bill as Romneycare.”
Liar.
“Again, I’d love to see any citation where he admits to being heavily influenced by Bill Ayers…”
Right. Barack Obama and lefty terrorist Bill Ayers. No connection at all. None.
“Ghostie”,
Go ahead & disrespect Frank all you choose. Doesn’t make him any less right & you any less full of empty slogans.
“…than millions of people who peacefully marched on your front lawn calling for less govt and more jobs.”
Helluva big lawn.
And you’re ignoring the point. You state (accurately) that President Obama has little truck with the Tea Party. I point out that the Tea Party considers him a Muslim, Kenyan, Communist, Radical. Not much room for dialogue.
Awkward,
You’re getting caught up in the slogans. There’s no way facts can compete. “The only way to win the game is not to play”.
Right. Barack Obama and lefty terrorist Bill Ayers. No connection at all. None.
Hmmm, on several occassions in the 90′s, I was detailed to assist the Capitol Police while they escorted then Speaker Newt through the airport where I was assigned. Newtie chatted with me and even shook my hand. I guess that makes me a conservative AND a serial adulturor.
Right. Barack Obama and lefty terrorist Bill Ayers. No connection at all. None.
Um, did you even read the transcript from what you linked to, genius? Ayers was clearly joking. The line about splitting the royalties? Oh never mind. It’s so far over your head.
Just furthers the notion that idiot wingnuts are completely impervious to things like sarcasm and irony.
Besides, it’s 2012. Try and keep up with the times. I mean, I know conservatives are always years behind the curve in just about everything, but at least try to come up with a new smear.
Because the whole Ayers thing didn’t work in 2008, ok dumbass? You do know that much, right?
I swear, I cannot even tell if the wingnut trolls here are just parodies of a dumbshit right winger, in character, or if they are really that fucking stupid.
Actually I can shout whatever I want. And just because you and your fellow lemmings here don’t like to be reminded of the Obama-supported and utter fail that was Solyndra, an investment in a solar panel co. (i.e. “green”) that cost taxpayers over a half-billion dollars doesn’t mean we cant hammer voters over it till November.
I love it when wingnuts get upset over a waste of taxpayer money.
Funny…they didn’t get upset when billions upon billions of dollars went missing in Iraq. Didn’t utter so much as a peep.
No sir, not a word. Bush was the guy you all wanted to have a beer with, right? Har har har, gotta love that fake cowboy banter. Har har har.
Solyandra was a failure, no shit. But it’s hardly the ‘scandal’ that dumbass wingers think it is.
But go ahead and use your little Playskool wingnut hammer with this one all you want. Really. Hit it really hard! Again! More, faster! Come on you pussy, hit it like a man!
Ha ha, you idiots got nothing and you know it. You got nothing but a Janus faced pandering Mormon and his offshore bank accounts.
No wonder you’re so upset.
Liar?
Ghost, you fucking moron, you linked to a Politifact article which says:
In the sidebar it says that the two following things are “mostly true”:
What, are you actually trying to skate on the semantic technicality that it’s not “precisely” the same bill? They’re close enough to prove that your point- well, like every point you try to make- was complete and utter bullshit.
Weak, weak, weak.
Lemming, lemming, lemming.
I guess that makes me a conservative AND a serial adulturor.
You have got my vote!
Burn: But go ahead and use your little Playskool wingnut hammer with this one all you want. Really. Hit it really hard! Again! More, faster! Come on you pussy, hit it like a man!
Aw, man. You made me LOL.
Playskool wingnut hammer
I detect a meme in the a-borning.
“Go ahead & disrespect Frank all you choose…”
Oh right. “Frank” the same guy you lemmings constantly belittle, dismiss, insult and bully is suddenly your voice of reason.
“I point out that the Tea Party considers him a Muslim,…”
Oh right, a couple of idiots speak for the millions in the Tea Party, all of whom leaders went on air and denounced such talk. But hey the dirty, vile and drug-infested OWS, despite 5,000 arrests (and counting), rampant violence everywhere and sexual assaults on women gets props from Barry, Nancy Pelosi and the entire Left. Again, no reason for polarization, none whatsoever.
“Hmmm, on several occassions in the 90′s, I was detailed to assist the Capitol Police while they escorted then Speaker Newt through the airport…”
When Newt attempts to kill innocent people all in the name of radical-leftist causes and writes a book about it mentioning how his thinking influenced your ideological vision for the world then you post your ass-backwards equivalences.
“Ha ha, you idiots got nothing and you know it. You got nothing but a Janus faced pandering Mormon…”
First, why do you hate Mormons so much Burn? But then since last time I checked Mitt and Barry were about dead even in the national polls it’s no surprise that Obamabots have to resort to personal attacks on the opposition since their dear leader’s record is too abysmal to stand on.
“What, are you actually trying to skate on the semantic technicality…”
Move the goalposts all you want Awk, but they’re not the same and Politifact pointed out 10 differences in them.
Right. Barack Obama and lefty terrorist Bill Ayers. No connection at all. None.
“Connection”? So now you’re just looking for a connection? See, earlier you said:
“has admitted to being heavily influenced by… Bill Ayers”
Now, the fact that Ayers joked that he wrote the book is… sort of… a connection, I guess. And it’s been demonstrated that the two have met.
But you had evidence of Obama ADMITTING TO BEING HEAVILY INFLUENCED by him. This is your claim, not mine. Therefore, it’s up to you to offer up some sort of proof. I’d love to see it, if you can take a break from moving the goal posts for a bit.
I love watching the idiot who cries about stupid conspiracy theories (TRIG BIRTHERISM! WHAH!!!!) pushing stupid conspiracies.
Not only are you stupid, Ghost, but you’re a hypocrite too! You’re a fucking failure, and I take pleasure in knowing that not one person of any merit has ever valued your opinion.
Trust me on that one.
Move the goalposts all you want Awk, but they’re not the same and Politifact pointed out 10 differences in them.
Do you even read your own links? They didn’t list 10 differences, they listed 10 different descriptions of the plans. Some of these were differences, whereas others were things like:
Experience shows the plan is not significantly going to lower costs. Supporters of the law are actively considering new legislation aimed at cost containment.
And:
A recent poll asked people whether they had a generally favorable or unfavorable view of the health plan. Responses split 41 percent and 41 percent between favoring and not favoring. Another 18 percent said they were undecided.
So the “different” ways the plans poll counts as a “difference” to you?
The bills are very similar in spirit. Of course there are some differences in the details and implementation, but to make it sound like Obama
“- immediately pushed for the most radical and leftist changes to healthcare…ever”
(Which is also the lamest way to write that- why don’t you just preface it with “OMG, so, like…” while you’re at it) without acknowledging Romneycare is just plain deceitful.
“But you had evidence of Obama ADMITTING TO BEING HEAVILY INFLUENCED by him….”
Right. Despite the earlier links that I mentioned, despite the ties to corrupt Chicago pols like Bill Daley and despite the fact that in HIS OWN FREAKING BOOK “Dreams From My Father”, Barry confesses that his early childhood mentor was a Marxist (Ayers was also a highly influential Chicago Marxist at the time) and, while in college, he was drawn to socialists and Marxists. And despite later on Barry continuing to pal around with anti-American radicals like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (whom he later served on the same Woods Foundation board with as well as worked together with on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) and even choosing in 1995 when he was age 34 to launch his political career in Ayers home–according the Left and the resident lemmings here there is still no evidence whatsoever to prove an Obama-Bill Ayers connection.
Dumbass.
First, why do you hate Mormons so much Burn?
Oh I don’t hate them one bit. You’re confusing me with the Talibangelical GOP base. You know, the good pious bigots down south? They are the ones who hate the ‘cultist’ Romney more than I ever could. Besides, here in AZ there is a sizable Mormon population (especially Mesa) and I find them very kind and pleasant on a personal level, but as far as their beliefs are concerned, yes, it’s a freaking cult founded by a noted con-man and philanderer. But I don’t hate them at all, silly.
But then since last time I checked Mitt and Barry were about dead even in the national polls it’s no surprise that Obamabots have to resort to personal attacks on the opposition since their dear leader’s record is too abysmal to stand on.
Wow, I thought wingnuts don’t trust polls, unless they are coming from Rasmussen, which the latest one shows Obama rising over Mittens. Try again, little girl.
Besides, just wait until Romney gets the nomination, assuming the convention isn’t a brokered bloodbath, with the Paultards in one corner and the Newtons in the other corner. You don’t get it yet. Romney does not inspire people. He has no loyal enthusiastic following.
He’s the guy only because all the others aren’t available.
And that does not win elections. At all.
Right. Despite the earlier links that I mentioned
The bullshit one about Ayers joking about writing his book. Doesn’t count, because it’s still conspiracy nonsense. And a fucking joke.
Barry confesses that his early childhood mentor was a Marxist (Ayers was also a highly influential Chicago Marxist at the time)
… A marxist named Frank Marshall Davis. So if you were trying to demonstrate that he admitted being heavily influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, you would absolutely have a point here.
Because he was influenced by one man who claimed to be a Marxist, he was therefore heavily influenced by another, separate man? Again, Ghost- you are desperately in need of a class in basic logic.
as well as worked together with on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge
Since you’ve introduced Politifact into evidence, the amount they actually interacted here seems to be up for debate.
still no evidence whatsoever to prove an Obama-Bill Ayers connection.
Idiot, goal posts- You weren’t talking about a connection.
You somehow think that the fact that their paths have crossed several times professionally means that [insert lots of noise and nonsense here] Obama has been heavily influenced by him. Again, your logic is fucking preposterous.
Keep playing with the Ayers thing, MGG. It just goes to show how pathetic and desperate you are, trying to dig up an unproven smear that didn’t work 4 years ago.
Let me say that again, it did not work in 2008. No one cares anymore, at least no one with a brain and a pulse.
Can’t you come up with something new for a change?
“Keep playing with the Ayers thing, MGG. It just goes to show how pathetic and desperate you are, trying to dig up an unproven smear…”
Right. Because only to a far-left loon would palling around with the same local shady pols, attending the same board meetings, having the same ideological viewpoint as a local hometown hero, working together on local projects and being mentioned in each other’s books would add up no connection at all.
“Romney does not inspire people. He has no loyal enthusiastic following. He’s the guy only because all the others aren’t available. And that does not win elections. At all….”
And you’d know this how? Unless you’re gonna tell me that you had all your bets on Barry from jump (instead of Billary) in ’08, didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry in ’00 and ’04 (gee, how did those great inspirational speakers work out against Bush?) and predicted the outcome of the ’10 midterm elections. But my guess is that you’re 0 fer 3 there.
Unless you’re gonna tell me that you had all your bets on Barry from jump (instead of Billary) in ’08,
Funny you should say that. When I first heard Obama speak a he 2004 convention, I told my (Black) employees that if there was ever going to be a Black president, it would be Barack Obama.
Because only to a far-left loon would palling around with the same local shady pols, attending the same board meetings, having the same ideological viewpoint as a local hometown hero, working together on local projects and being mentioned in each other’s books would add up no connection at all.
Show me one photo of Ayers and Obama together, smiling, sharing a moment, then I’ll call it ‘palling around’.
Seriously. You call it palling around? Then I suppose you can show us all the evidence to back that up. Palling around implies a social relationship outside of business settings. Did Ayers come over to hang out with Obama during summer backyard parties? Was he there for the girls’ birthdays?
I don’t even know why I am wasting my time trying to explain this shit to you, since it was all debunked when Mccain ran those stupid ads back in 2008. It didn’t work then, so what makes you think it will work now? You really think anyone here, besides yourself is going to buy into what you are trying to peddle?
Until then, you ain’t got jack shit, chump. Nothing at all. And you know it. Really.
And you’d know this how?,/i>
I read wingnut blogs for starters, dipshit. I know how much he is loathed on the right. I look at election results as well. You see what happened tonight? Romney won the south of Florida, Newt took the northern part of the state, with all the inbreds and hicks and birthtards.
And just the fact that the guy has been running for president for 6 fuckin years, and people still think he’s a pandering phony speaks volumes.
Are you really this fucking clueless as to the state of the GOP Primaries?
Unless you’re gonna tell me that you had all your bets on Barry from jump (instead of Billary) in ’08,
I did. Like Repack, I knew after seeing him in 04 speak at the DNC convention, I knew that man was going to be a major player, I just didn’t think it would be so soon. I fucking hated Hilary as a candidate, even though I find her extremely intelligent and very good as SOS.
idn’t vote for Gore or Kerry in ’00 and ’04 (gee, how did those great inspirational speakers work out against Bush?) and predicted the outcome of the ’10 midterm elections. But my guess is that you’re 0 fer 3 there.
Blah blah blah, change the subject as fast as possible to avoid the unpleasant painful truth that Romney sucks ass, he cannot unite the wingnuts, and he will lose to Obama, plain and simple. That’s the bottom line, sucker. Deal with it.
I’ll buy you an extra large box of Kleenex so you can cry your little heart out come November, ok?
Until then, you ain’t got jack shit, chump. Nothing at all. And you know it. Really. – burn
He’ll use 57 states any minute now.
57 States!!!!!
Can’t wait.
Teleprompter!
” Where civil rights were concerned, in the post-WW2 period Republicans had a better record than Democrats.”
That would only be true if the years 1968 – 2012 happened before WWII.
“Ghostie”,
“Oh right. “Frank” the same guy you lemmings constantly belittle, dismiss, insult and bully is suddenly your voice of reason.”
First off, I’ve always tried to to treat Frank is a fair & respectful way. Find three examples not. Second, no one here is belittling Frank about his slogan comments. Mostly because those comments make sense.
“I point out that the Tea Party considers him a Muslim,…” (me)
“Oh right, a couple of idiots speak for the millions in the Tea Party, all of whom leaders went on air and denounced such talk” (you)
A couple? A COUPLE? Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Beck on Fox,… I have neither the time nor the inclination to go into the Birther movement for you.
By 7:40 your playing the “Six Degrees of Bill Ayres.” Bill Ayres Lived in Chicago, Chicago has the Mercantile Exchange, Mercantile Exchange has investments, Mitt Romney has investments, Therefore Mitt Romney has ties to Bill Ayres. (Am I playing it right?)
Prodigal,
I miss your point entirely with you at 3 in the morning me at pushing 6 it’s not hard to guess why. But don’t forget that Republicans once had a liberal wing and many admirable people were Republicans. Nixon wrecked that branch of the party starting in ’68 by playing the racist card. The issue isn’t whether the Republicans even had a liberal wing. We can’t deny history. But rather what did those guys stand for & what would the Republican Party do with them now?
Burn,
I’ll again repeat the advice of Han Solo, “Don’t get cocky, kid.” There’s a RW site that I visit showing the state by state polls & counting the electoral votes. They have President Obama leading in only 271 electoral states. President Obama lost (what was it 10?) electoral votes merely due to the census. President Obama might lose NC, VA, IN without surprising anyone.
We haven’t begun to see the effects of the “carpet bombing” negative ads. Don’t deceive yourself into thinking the ads will be poorly done or ineffective.
But I’ll leave you with some good news. Each dollar spent on Republican negative advertising is another dollar spent in the economy and so goes to improve the overall employment & GDP figures. Hire ad writers! Buy time on local TV! Take that money & “Lend it, Spend it, Send it rollig around!”
Db, I apologise for forgetting to include the part where you wrote that Manju has a point. The sad fact is that no, he does not, because he keeps arguing that because Southern Democrats opposed civil rights seven decades ago, modern Democrats are worse on civil rights than modern Republicans. And that’s not even remotely close to true.
Mr Grey Ghost: Oh right. “Frank” the same guy you lemmings constantly belittle, dismiss, insult and bully…
Us bully Frank? I should tell you a story about Frank and his Louisville Slugger sometime….
Please you please pull the quotes in which I keep arguing this?
That would only be true if the years 1968 – 2012 happened before WWII.
?
Ah, I get it now. By “post-WW2 period” I meant the decades immediately after WW2.
That is patently clear given that I said “There has been a notable shift in both parties since 50 years ago and certainly more recent Republicans and Democrats would not fit in with what their parties were.”
Below, a list of every Senator, along with their party affiliation, who voted against the 1970 voting rights act.
Nay AL Allen, James [D]
Nay VA Byrd, Harry [D]
Nay WV Byrd, Robert [D]
Nay MS Eastland, James [D]
Nay LA Ellender, Allen [D]
Nay NC Ervin, Samuel [D]
Nay FL Holland, Spessard [D]
Nay SC Hollings, Ernest [D]
Nay AL Sparkman, John [D]
Nay MS Stennis, John [D]
Nay GA Talmadge, Herman [D]
Nay SC Thurmond, J. [R]
Us bully Frank? I should tell you a story
You don’t really want me to go back and find negative comments about me, do you? The mildest being, “If you don’t like how we treat you, you can leave”. Perhaps we could go to the “Why don’t you kill yourself” and “Why don’t you just die” category?
OR
“Your children pray you die” and “It’s no surprise your wife left you” library?
Then there’s “You must be drinking or drunk again” catalog.
db says “I have always been respectful to Frank; names three times I haven’t” … Of course ! because “always respectful” in liberalese is “except for the two times I wasn’t.
And, of course, saving the very best for last : Dark Avenger has a weblog – A WEBLOG! – devoted to insulting me … And he actually links to it here, so someone will read it. That’s because he has gotten less views since he initiated the blog than I get Likes and positive Comments on my Facebook each and every day …
But , yes, Christopher, I and I alone have been an absolute terror here, haven’t I ?
NOW you may tell the Louisville Slugger story in its proper context.
Ok, really not going to jump in other than this, but I was unfamiliar with many of those names so went Wiki on them. Here’s a snip from the very first.
In 1968 he was elected as a member of the Democratic Party to the United States Senate and was reelected in 1974. A master of parliamentary procedure, Allen was known as one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate during his time there, more conservative even than many Republicans at that time. He was an active opponent of the Panama Canal Treaty. Allen received one vote for the Republican vice-presidential nomination at the 1976 Republican National Convention.[1][2]
Anywhoo, to return to the actual content of the Thread was I actually meant to say was that Liberals like to believe they are mainstream, and “in the center”. My point that Americans self identify as conservatives nearly two to one, was meant to make the “Lake Woebegone” point : You can’t be in the center, and be in the minority at the same time.
If, as Strowbridge suggests , you want to identify a person’s ideology by their support of policies , then you have to judge them by all policies : For example , Electoral College v Nationwide election; Affirmative action y/n; gay marriage y/n ; late term abortion y/n; federal funding of abortion y/n; should the government continue to engage in deficit spending y/n . You see where I’m going with this ? This is why most Americans identify as conservative …
Because they are ….
But they do not define themselves as being in the center. They understand that they are somewhere to the right of center – that’s what “conservative” means.
For the billionth time: You will not find any reasonable person arguing that some Democrats were against civil rights legislation in the 1960′s and prior. The parties at that point were not so polarized as to be synonymous with “liberal” and “conservative” ideologies; they are now, however, to a large degree. Liberals supported the civil rights movement; conservatives largely opposed it. It’s not fucking rocket surgery, people.
Frank, you get the amount of respect you deserve. You’re not put upon; you’re not a victim; you are not unfairly bullied. You have insulted and physically threatened people on here on numerous, numerous occasions. I seem to recall you threatening to knock Sean’s teeth in at one point. So kindly go fuck yourself. You try to play both sides, slinging your shit around, and then complain when people call you on it and call you an idiot and an asshole for behaving like an idiot and an asshole.
No one is buying your shit. Fuck off.
Damn it.
Correction: You will not find any reasonable person arguing that some Democrats weren’t against civil rights legislation in the 1960′s and prior
Also, I should point out that Frank weirdly has this strong need to be belittled and insulted. He keeps coming back for more and more of it. Some psychologists might say that this indicates that being insulted is reinforcing for Frank, despite his pleas to the contrary. db is one person who goes out of his way to be polite to Frank, and yet ol’ Frankie just shits on him anyway. Funny, that.
Anyway Frank, enjoy the last few months of your life.
Incorrect. Republicans have been distinctly to the right of Democrats for more than a century now. See here:
http://voteview.com/images/polar_senate_means.jpg
This is from the book referenced above. I don’t want to get too wonky, but these scholars use (and pioneered) DW Nominate…the gold standard by which Poitical Scientists determine ideological positioning. You will find Nate Silver and Paul Krugman using this analysis.
Incorrect. See above chart. Notice that the segregationists are to the left of Republicans. So, since those to the rights of Dixiecrats favored civil rights more, it is inaccurate to claim what you just did; unless you mean a conservative is simply someone who wants to conserve Jim Crow…which would be a mere tautology.
The above chart carves out Civil Rights because, as the authors state:
Frank DiSalle: NOW you may tell the Louisville Slugger story in its proper context.
Gee, Frank. People have said insulting things to your here? I’m sure you’re shocked, shocked that they would do that. Being such a pristine example of politeness and restraint yourself.
And a website? Again must be shocking to have your own words quoted verbatim like that.
As for context, that would be you coming here, a place you are not require to be but freely choose to visit fully knowing what it’s like, and responding to the usual comments with repeated threats of actual physical violence. Free for anyone to see here in full context, or start around here if they want to get right to the good stuff. Of course, you’re clearly a coward at heart so I suppose I could withdraw the Frank-is-a-bully sentiment since we know you’ll never actually do anything, “keyboard commando” that you are.
mambochicken23: I seem to recall you [Frank] threatening to knock Sean’s teeth in at one point.
Essentially correct. He’d have him “spend the rest of [his] life drinking out of a straw”. It was all so far, far over that line Frank complains about people crossing that it shouldn’t be forgotten.
Democratic (“Dixiecrat”) Party
August 14, 1948
Unanimously Adopted at Oklahoma City, August 14, 1948
- 1 -
We believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest charter of human liberty ever conceived by the mind of man.
- 2 -
We oppose all efforts to invade or destroy the rights guaranteed by it to every citizen of this republic.
- 3 -
We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the totallitarian, centralized bureaucratic government and the police nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.
- 4 -
We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one’s associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one’s living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the
misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.
- 5 -
We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.
- 6 -
We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be differences in race, creed or national origin in appreciable numbers.
- 7 -
We stand for the check and balances provided by the three departments of our government. We oppose the usurpation of legislative functions by the executive and judicial departments. We unreservedly condemn the effort to establish in the United States a police nation that would destroy the last vestige of liberty enjoyed by a citizen.
- 8 -
We demand that there be returned to the people to whom of right they belong, those powers needed for the preservation of human rights and the discharge of our responsibility as democrats for human welfare. We oppose a denial of those by political parties, a barter or sale of those rights by a political convention, as well as any invasion or violation of those rights by the Federal Government. We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to
totalitarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominiously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.
- 9 -
We, therefore, urge that this Convention endorse the candidacies of J. Strom Thurmond and Fielding H. Wright for the President and Vice-president, respectively, of the United States of America.
And, of course, saving the very best for last : Dark Avenger has a weblog – A WEBLOG! – devoted to insulting me
By quoting you verbatim, Frank(I beg your pardon, Renfro), if you can’t stand your own words being held up to scrutiny then you can choose the option of shutting the fuck up.
And he actually links to it here, so someone will read it
Sometimes, Frank, but if you want me to include this blog on a blogroll on the website, say the word, and I’d be glad to do so.
That’s because he has gotten less views since he initiated the blog than I get Likes and positive Comments on my Facebook each and every day
That just proves there are a lot of stupid people like you, Frank.
Of course, if you wrote the following on Facebook, you might not get so may Likes:
Nice charge of copraphagy, there, Frank, did you learn that from your mother or your father or from your stint in the Army?
Willie, I’m not sure what the ’48 Dixiecrat platform is supposed to tell us.
You mentioned those “to the right of the Dixiecrats.” Who would that be?
Those would be Republicans. The chart graphs the Party Means based on votes in the Senate on non-civil rights issues…to determine who is Conservative and who is Liberal by the modern usage of the term.
I’ll get links for examples from other threads of Manju trying to claim that what some Democrats did in the 1960s make modern Republicans superior to modern Democrats on civil rights later tonight when i can use my computer rather than my phone to retrieve them, but for now on that score I’ll just remind people of how often Manju has brought up Robert Burst without admitting that Burst ultimately renounced the racism of his youth.
But as long as we’re talking about party voting records on civil rights legislation, let’s look at which side voted how for the 1964 CRA, shall we?
Senate:
Democrats: 46 for, 21 against
Republicans: 27 for, 6 against
House:
Democrats: 153 for, 91 against
Republicans: 136 for, 35 against
Another thing that people like Manju typically refuse to acknowledge is that while most Southern Democrats voted against CRA1964, eevery Southern Republican voted against it.
Racism of his Youth? He was 53 years old when he voted against the 1970 voting rights act.
Liberals, white-washing their dixiecrats yet again.
You know, I was once a member of an online group — not an open blog like this, but a membership organization. And it was basically a place for people to post interesting pictures (I went in for unusual flags a lot), but members were free to discuss political issues, so I did some of that.
The result was an outpouring of abuse that reminded me of what gets done to Frank here on a regular basis (including attacks on my wife, my parents and my children, complete with my street address — stay classy, GOPers).
Based on my own experience, I do think that Frank is ill-treated here, and unfairly treated, and no matter where you want to draw the line, it shows some footprints.
Oh, and by the way, leaving the service with the same rank you went in isn’t “failure”. I went in as an E-3 and came out as an E-2, and yes, I failed at what I tried. Frank tried something and did not prosper, which is different.
I stayed in that online group longer than was healthy for me, but there were a lot of really nice pictures posted there. What is there here for Frank, though? I don’t know.
This is demonstratively false. On my very first thread here I mentioned Byrd’s renunciation of the Klan:
Frank: That’s because he has gotten less views since he initiated the blog than I get Likes and positive Comments on my Facebook each and every day
And on your Facebook page are you having discussions and posting comments similar to what you’re posting here?
No?
So what’s the point you’re trying to make by that comparison, Frank?
Holy fuck, Manju. Are you a bot? Southern Democrats largely voted against civil rights legislation; Southern Republicans almost exclusively voted against civil rights legislation. After the passage of the CRA and related bills, the Republican party largely absorbed the Dixiecrats.
And let me say: Fuck the ’60s-era Dixiecrats. Fuck them with a rusty claw hammer. They were on the wrong side of the fight.
That said, this is all completely irrelevant to the modern versions of the parties, except for perhaps a bit of historical understanding on how the Republican party became the near-exclusive party of racial intolerance. You remind me of stupid sportscasters that talk seriously about the all-time postseason win-loss record of teams that haven’t made the playoffs in a decade. “The Seahawks have an 0-7 record in the playoffs against the Packers since 1949.” It’s fucking meaningless – the team names are the same but virtually every member of the organization, particularly those in play, are different.
Jesus Christ.
And John: Frank brings it on himself. He knows the environment. This is the internet: Bring a hard-hat. But more importantly, he himself engages in the same kind of behavior that he bemoans. He’s not only an idiot, but a deplorable hypocrite. In fact, his behavior is far worse – I cannot think of any time that a liberal here has threatened anyone else here with physical violence. I know I certainly haven’t. But Frank has.
So yeah, in short, fuck Frank.
John M. Burt: Based on my own experience, I do think that Frank is ill-treated here, and unfairly treated, and no matter where you want to draw the line, it shows some footprints.
Folks from both sides play with that line, true. But it’s the nature of this place and that’s well known to those who frequent it. So when Frank, who certainly gives at least as well as he gets (and IMHO has been even more abusive than average), then complains about the treatment he gets I have no sympathy for him. The jerk doesn’t have any standing to compain when people call him a jerk.
Oh, and by the way, leaving the service with the same rank you went in isn’t “failure”. I went in as an E-3 and came out as an E-2, and yes, I failed at what I tried. Frank tried something and did not prosper, which is different.
Frank has boasted about his getting busted in rank (repeatedly demoted, if memory serves) because he chose to behave in a manner which would result in demotions. To me that doesn’t make him someone who tried something and wasn’t successful. It’s not someone who strove but failed and should get credit for the attempt. It’s someone who purposefully chose not to fulfill their obligations and has tried to pass that off as an admirable thing.
What is there here for Frank, though? I don’t know.
I don’t either. Yet he insists on staying, which he’s free to do, of course. But don’t lose sight of it being his choice.
patient: “Doctor, doctor! It hurts when I do this!”
doctor: “Well, then stop doing that.”
patient: “No.”
A complete flip of the historical record, though a very common (and racist) Democratic belief. The vaaaast majority of Dixiecrats / segregationist politicians remained democratic.
Below, a list of all the Dem Senators who voted against the ’64cra:
Byrd, Harry [D]
Byrd, Robert [D]
Eastland, James [D]
Ellender, Allen [D]
Ervin, Samuel [D]
Fulbright, James [D]
Gore, Albert [D]
Hill, Joseph [D]
Holland, Spessard [D]
Johnston, Olin [D]
Jordan, Benjamin [D]
Long, Russell [D]
McClellan, John [D]
Robertson, Absalom [D]
Russell, Richard [D]
Smathers, George [D]
Sparkman, John [D]
Stennis, John [D]
Talmadge, Herman [D]
Thurmond, J. [D]
Walters, Herbert [D]
I defy you to find more than 1 who became Republican.
“That said, this is all completely irrelevant to the modern versions of the parties, except for perhaps a bit of historical understanding on how the Republican party became the near-exclusive party of racial intolerance. You remind me of stupid sportscasters that talk seriously about the all-time postseason win-loss record of teams that haven’t made the playoffs in a decade….
Hey, a sports analogy! I love sports so I’ll play along too…dismissing the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly supported the Civil Right Act over Democrats (with the most eager opposition coming from Dems Strom Thurmond and ex-KKK leader, filibustering Robert Byrd) is like (sorry but from the east coast) saying the Yankee teams from the 80′s to the mid-90′s don’t count in a historical context because…umm, they weren’t any good and didn’t have Derek Jeter yet. Oh wait, how about ignoring every God-awful New England Patriots team before ummm…yunno Tom Brady and Bill Belichick hadn’t arrived yet? Or every Bulls team where Michael Jordan failed to play (or perhaps wasn’t born yet). See how easy that was! Let’s play again!
1 – In the 50′s and 60′s Republicans supported civil rights more than Democrats.
Is anyone going to argue against that? There are certainly facts to back it up. For example, 36% of Dems in the House and Senate (112 of 311) voted against it while only 20% of the Repubs (41 of 204) did.
2 – The make up and positions of the two parties have changed significantly in the nearly 50 years since then.
Seems to me folks are agreeing on that:
mambochicken23: the team names are the same but virtually every member of the organization, particularly those in play, are different.
MrGreyGhost: is like (sorry but from the east coast) saying the Yankee teams from the 80′s to the mid-90′s don’t count in a historical context
I love how Manju wants people to think that a thread where he wrote “Did Byrd even apologize for the Klan? Was the apology genuine or mere political calculation?” is not an example of him trying to deny that Byrd renounced racism.
“is not an example of him trying to deny that Byrd renounced racism….”
Right! Buh-buh-but…Byrd apologized for joining the KKK in his 20′s and serving as a leader for that hate group for 10 years as well as later on filibustering it as senator in an attempt to stop the CRA from getting passed, so conservatives should shut up about it and move on. But the lemmings here can bring up anonymous Tea Party “racists” anytime they want even tho every Tea Party leader went on air and condemned any alleged racist behavior, much less any association with it–don’t we all just love the daily hypocritical self-righteous moral indignation that comes from the Left.
mambochicken23 says: “Holy fuck, Manju. Are you a bot? Southern Democrats largely voted against civil rights legislation; Southern Republicans almost exclusively voted against civil rights legislation.”
Southern Democrats voted in favor of civil rights by a higher percentage than Southern Republicans did.
Northern Democrats voted in favor of civil rights by a higher percentage than Northern Republicans did.
I’ve pointed out a number of times, but Manju claimed he could explain this. If he ever did get around to explaining it, I didn’t see his post.
The vaaaast majority of Dixiecrats / segregationist politicians remained democratic.
Huh, well whaddya know, turns out this is true. OK, cool. However, let me reiterate a couple of things:
1) Fuck the ’60s-era Dixiecrats. Fuck them with a rusty claw hammer. They were on the wrong side of the fight.
2) That said, this is all completely irrelevant to the modern versions of the parties
This shit matters not when considering the two parties in 2012. I don’t understand why you get an erection talking about the ’60s without any consideration for anything that’s happened since then.
I love sports so I’ll play along too…dismissing the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly supported the Civil Right Act over Democrats (with the most eager opposition coming from Dems Strom Thurmond and ex-KKK leader, filibustering Robert Byrd) is like (sorry but from the east coast) saying the Yankee teams from the 80′s to the mid-90′s don’t count in a historical context because…umm, they weren’t any good and didn’t have Derek Jeter yet. Oh wait, how about ignoring every God-awful New England Patriots team before ummm…yunno Tom Brady and Bill Belichick hadn’t arrived yet? Or every Bulls team where Michael Jordan failed to play (or perhaps wasn’t born yet). See how easy that was! Let’s play again!
Ghost, you are the stupidest person on this blog. I mean that sincerely. Somehow you think that what you just said is relevant and also somehow is counter to what I wrote. That you think your hastily-written blather somehow contradicts me, of all things, is laughable. Also, I am dying laughing at the with the most eager opposition coming from Dems Strom Thurmond portion.
Fuck the Southern Democrats from that era. Just because they had a (D) after their names does not mean I endorse their behavior, nor does it mean I wish to defend them. Hell, I think that the majority of the South, generally, can go fuck itself.
But in any case, the Southern Democrats bear little resemblance to the modern Democratic party; hell, they were at odds with the majority of their party in their own era.
From now on it’ll likely be easier just to call you a fuckwit than waste my time with you anymore.
I’ve pointed out a number of times, but Manju claimed he could explain this. If he ever did get around to explaining it, I didn’t see his post.
Seems pretty clear-cut that we’re talking about regional divisions being more important than party affiliations during this time. But good luck getting into that thick fucking skull of his.
Manju plays this game in nearly every thread he posts on, and when you point out why his position is stupidly argumenative and irrelevent to the modern parties, he just vomits up some other segregationist Democrat or Dixiecrat from half a century ago. IIRC, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat (curiously omitted from Manju’s list) opposed to the CRA who became a Republican, and while Jesse Helms wasn’t in Congress at the time of Civil Rights Acts passage, he was also a conservative Democrat who shifted to the Republican party when the Republicans decided to appeal to the racist elements in the south. In the end though, its probably best not to feed Manju.
Ahhh…I see what you’re doing. I thought you were claiming I doubted the occurrence of Byrd’s apology, not the veracity of it.
And you’re damn right I doubt the veracity. After all, in that thread, I provided a source (the Washington Post) that explains how Byrd (as late as 2005) was whitewashing the Klan.
Prodigal does not even address this. He chooses to believe a man who was famously caught lying about his membership in the Klan. He then goes on to shamelessly characterize Byrd’s racism as “the racism of his youth.”
Erased from history is Byrd post-klan career. He refused to serve in the military because he didn’t want to associate with Black people. He took to the Senate stage to tell us that Black brains were smaller than White ones, in the longest and most racist speech of the famous 1964 filibuster. He said the bible mandates segregation, and that “Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision.”
He wrote to the FBI in 1968 to ask them to stop Martin Luther King. He tried to stop Thurgood Marshall too, and the 65, 68, and 70 cra’s.
All this is denied in Prodigal’s neo-confederate version of history. He’s all worried that folks are denying Byrd’s far-fetched version of his own racist history
You’re right, Manju. The existence of Robert Byrd demonstrates that the Democrats are the real racists. Thank you for clearing that up. Anything else you’d care to talk about… ever?
I’ll address this on this thread today.
When you first asked me to explain it, I knew the answer (Northern Dems opposed civil rights in the early procedural votes) but i didn’t have the data. And frankly, northern repubs often did the same thing, so without the actual data I honestly didn’t know who was worse. I have that data now.
When you first asked me to explain it, I knew the answer (Northern Dems opposed civil rights in the early procedural votes) but i didn’t have the data. And frankly, northern repubs often did the same thing, so without the actual data I honestly didn’t know who was worse. I have that data now.
Great. Let’s see that data. And also note that if that information is what you deliver, that doesn’t in itself answer Strowbridge’s question.
Huh? Thurmond’s name is on every list I posted.
I tell ya, I don’t get this stupid obsession with the past history of the Democratic Party. It’s all there for anyone to see.
Yes, they were the party of the KKK for decades. That all changed in the 60′s with LBJ and the CRA. Duh.
What is the problem here?
My apologies, you had Thurmond listed as “J” Thurmond, that’s why I missed it. Point remains, you equating certain Democrats from 50 years ago with today’s Democratic party as a whole is just plain silly.
Let’s start with the scholars I referenced, who have gone thru every singel house and senate vote, final and procedural, over the last century and a half in a painstaking comprehensive study.
I have also downloaded virtually all the votes for all the cra’s (still a work in progress) so I can then give you some specifics. On top of that I can reference some authorities that confirm the narrative.
But first, here is the most comprehensive data:
1. The Senate, on regional issues (North v South, civil rghts)
http://voteview.com/images/Senate_Party_Means_46-111_2nd.jpg
2. Ditto, for the House:
http://voteview.com/images/House_Party_Means_46-111_2nd.jpg
You can see from this data that Democrats, even with their Southern faction carved out, were more opposed to civil rights than Republicans were.
You want to focus on the civil rights era from about 1935 to about 1970’s. Before that, most votes tracked Bimetallism (since they are carving out the regional differences) and after that there were simply were not many civil rights votes (and on the ones that were held, republicans did rather well on… and the Dems were still housing segregationists, though they were largely emasculated).
Digest that and I’ll come back with more.
“Digest that and I’ll come back with more.”
Why didn’t you separate out the northern and southern Republicans?
CS,
1. They were statistically insignificant. 2. Because Southern Republicans weren’t allowed to run in much of the South.
No Republican Southern Senator voted against the 57 and 60 cra’s because…well…there weren’t any. 1 voted against the ’64 one, but what are you going to do, map one guy’s vote? There were 10 R’s in 64 and 6 in ’57, compared to the 100+ Dems. (In 57 btw, every single representative from the South voted No or not present).
IIRC from the other thread, someone (probably either you or Prodigal) was asserting that if you were a Republican in the south you were more likely to be opposed to civil rights than if you were a Dem, given that the handful of R’s scored a 100% No in the ‘64cra.
This eliminates the reality of one-party-region and tantamount to election. Most segregationists ran unopposed. For example, when Wintrop Rockerfeller (a pro civil rights republican) first tried to take out Orvile Faubus in Arkansas, Faubus paid off black voters to vote him (and these Dems knew which lever folks pulled). So the playing field was too skewed by the violent, racially coercive Democratic monopoly of the region.
I objected strenuously to that line of reasoning because it denied this important piece of history.
Manju says: “1. They were statistically insignificant.”
Then you don’t have enough information to make a claim. End of story. Stop making claims.
But in reality, there are enough NORTHERN REPUBLICANS to make a claim. You refuse to look at this information.
“2. Because Southern Republicans weren’t allowed to run in much of the South.”
You keep arguing that, but that doesn’t explain why NORTHERN REPUBLICANS were less likely than NORTHERN DEMOCRATS to vote for Civil Rights.
If, as Strowbridge suggests , you want to identify a person’s ideology by their support of policies , then you have to judge them by all policies : For example , Electoral College v Nationwide election; Affirmative action y/n; gay marriage y/n ; late term abortion y/n; federal funding of abortion y/n; should the government continue to engage in deficit spending y/n .
So those positions count, but people’s positions on, say, gay marriage, tax policy, public healthcare, social security, and medicare don’t?
It seems the only real conservative position at play here is “heads I win, tails you lose”.
Frank, this is why people hate you. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, and when it’s pointed out to you, you continue to act like a smarmy, self-righteous prick.
Oh, I also found another post of yours, which is just hilarious now.
Manju,
The three big Democrats, I remember as joining the Republicans in the late 60′s were John Connolly (TX), Helms, & Thurmond. There were no doubt many more later including, but not limited to, Jeff Sessions (AL).
You’re right that Bi-metalism tended to be a Democratic issue. (funny how Ron Paul had brought the issue back) with the Republicans tending to be the “Party of Wall Street”. On the other hand, the Progressives tended to be Republicans, La Follette & La Guardia come to mind immediately.
So, I’m with you on the idea that you can’t split one issue i.e. segregation out of the parties. The Democrats had a segregationist wing. No argument.
What I don’t see is the relevance to today. In the early 1960′s the Democrats had a powerful segregationist wing. Good. Oliver wasn’t born yet. Baseball didn’t have the Designated Hitter & the Redskins still sucked. So what?
My point is simply that we now have two major political parties in the US & given the political structure, we’re are likely to keep the two-party system. One is Center-Right in so far as labels can tell us anything & the other is far-right.
Oh, I also found another post of yours, which is just hilarious now. – zython
No tot make this a “let’s pick on our resident wingnuts” thread, but from that same linked post –
SaveFarris says:
August 25, 2009 at 8:20 am
That is, attacking and destroying Al Qaeda, with a focus on Osama Bin Laden
How’s that going? Caught him yet?
Tee-hee!
Your capacity for denial is impressive. I mean, I just linked you up to data from 3 highly respected scholars who provide that very information and you shamelessly claim that “I refuse to look at this information.”
Then you bizarrely reassert that “NORTHERN REPUBLICANS were less likely than NORTHERN DEMOCRATS to vote for Civil Rights” when the very data that you just asked me about demonstrates otherwise.
Manju,
Please explain the relevance of voting patterns in the 1950s & 60s?
I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, I just don’t see your point.
CRA of 1964
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
There were Democrats who were putzes, and there were Democrats who were heroes.
Dismissing, for a moment, the “D” and “R” designations, why don’t we look at this from a “liberal” and “conservative” perspective?
How about we map the nay votes against each senator’s ADA* score?
Quick refresher- how is this score tabulated? From their site:
Without further ado, the scores:
The Democrat nays:
Byrd, Harry 16
Byrd, Robert 16
Eastland, James 0
Ellender, Allen 11
Ervin, Samuel 5
Fulbright, James 28
Gore, Albert 63
Hill, Joseph 11
Holland, Spessard 5
Johnston, Olin 28
Jordan, Benjamin 5
Long, Russell 11
McClellan, John 5
Robertson, Absalom 11
Russell, Richard 16
Smathers, George 11
Sparkman, John 11
Stennis, John 5
Talmadge, Herman [D] 11
Thurmond, J [SC] 5
Walters, Herbert [D] 0
The Republican nays:
Goldwater, Barry [AZ] 0
Hickenlooper, Bourke [A] 11
Cotton, Norris [NH] 5
Meacham, Edwin [NM] 0
Tower, John [TX] 0
Simpson, Milward [WY] 0
For average scores of 12.5 (D only), and 10.7 (all). These are just slightly on the conservative end of the spectrum. Only one score (Gore) stands out as being well into the liberal end of the spectrum.
Additionally, close to 30% of the Republicans who voted in favor would sit to the left of the Senate’s current most liberal Republican (Snowe)- some by quite a margin.
Aiken [VT] 63
Saltonstall [MA] 63
Case [NJ] 84
Allot[CO] 42
Cooper [KY] 42
Javitz [NY] 89
Fong [HI] 68
Miller [IA] 42
Since the ADA score is an approximation it’s not a perfect measure, but at the very least, it demonstrates that few, if any, of the “nay” votes came from a conscience that could be characterized as “progressive”, giving their voting records.
Anyhow. Food for thought…
*
From their about section:
One other note- there’s a small margin of error in those scores because the numbers in the scanned pdf are really fucking difficult to read… although the same scores pop up enough that you can sorta cross reference them to one another…
And just for fun, here are the ADA scores for those voting “aye”:
Aye VT Aiken, George [R] 63
Aye CO Allott, Gordon [R] 42
Aye NM-1 Anderson, Clinton [D] 63
Aye AK Bartlett, Edward [D] 79
Aye IN Bayh, Birch [D] 84
Aye MD-6 Beall, James [R] 79
Aye UT Bennett, Wallace [R] 5
Aye NV Bible, Alan [D] 26
Aye DE-0 Boggs, James [R] 32
Aye MD-2 Brewster, Daniel [D] 79
Aye ND Burdick, Quentin [D] 84
Aye NV Cannon, Howard [D] 37
Aye KS-6 Carlson, Frank [R] 26
Aye NJ-6 Case, Clifford [R] 84
Aye ID Church, Frank [D] 89
Aye PA Clark, Joseph [D] 100
Aye KY Cooper, John [R] 42
Aye NE-4 Curtis, Carl [R] 16
Aye IL-16 Dirksen, Everett [R] 32
Aye CT-1 Dodd, Thomas [D] 84
Aye CO-2 Dominick, Peter [R] 21
Aye IL Douglas, Paul [D] 100
Aye OK Edmondson, James [D] 47
Aye CA-2 Engle, Clair [D] 88*
Aye HI Fong, Hiram [R] 58
Aye AK Gruening, Ernest [D] 63
Aye MI Hart, Philip [D] 100
Aye IN Hartke, Rupert [D] 58
Aye AZ Hayden, Carl [D] 32
Aye NE Hruska, Roman [R] 16
Aye MN Humphrey, Hubert [D] 100
Aye HI-0 Inouye, Daniel [D] 74
Aye WA-2 Jackson, Henry [D] 68
Aye NY-21 Javits, Jacob [R] 89
Aye ID Jordan, Leonard [R] 11
Aye NY-40 Keating, Kenneth [R] 84
Aye MA Kennedy, Edward [D] 89
Aye CA Kuchel, Thomas [R] 78
Aye OH Lausche, Frank [D] 47
Aye MO Long, Edward [D] 63
Aye WA-1 Magnuson, Warren [D] 74
Aye MT-1 Mansfield, Michael [D] 84
Aye MN-4 McCarthy, Eugene [D] 79
Aye WY McGee, Gale [D] 74
Aye SD-1 McGovern, George [D] 95
Aye NH McIntyre, Thomas [D] 79
Aye MI McNamara, Patrick [D] 100
Aye MT-1 Metcalf, Lee [D] 89
Aye IA Miller, Jack [R] 42
Aye OK-5 Monroney, Almer [D] 63
Aye OR Morse, Wayne [D] 79
Aye KY-3 Morton, Thruston [R] 11
Aye UT Moss, Frank [D] 79
Aye SD-1 Mundt, Karl [R] 26
Aye ME Muskie, Edmund [D] 95
Aye WI Nelson, Gaylord [D] 100
Aye OR Neuberger, Maurine [D] 95
Aye Pastore, John [D] 89
Aye KS Pearson, James [R] 32
Aye RI Pell, Claiborne [D] 95
Aye VT-0 Prouty, Winston [R] 53
Aye WI Proxmire, William [D] 96
Aye WV-2 Randolph, Jennings [D] 74
Aye CT-1 Ribicoff, Abraham [D] 95
Aye MA Saltonstall, Leverett [R] 63
Aye PA-7 Scott, Hugh [R] 68
Aye ME-2 Smith, Margaret [R] 84
Aye MO Symington, William [D] 79
Aye NJ-6 Williams, Harrison [D] 84
Aye DE Williams, John [R] 37
Aye TX Yarborough, Ralph [D] 42
Aye ND Young, Milton [R] 16
Aye OH Young, Stephen [D] 84
Average of roughly 62 (I rounded down because I had to swap in Clair Engle’s 1963 rating, since he was derailed by health issues)
Mr. Stark,
Not a real significant difference in voting, particularly in how you define “Northern” & “Southern”, MO & KY in particular are likely to be voting with “Southern” but counted as “Northern”.
But I’ll point out the other half, there were Republicans who were putzes and there were Republicans who were heroes.
But where does that get us today in 2012?
AwkwardSilence,
Is the ADA rating itself affected by civil rights votes? In other words, if a Senator opposes civil rights, does that move his score more into the conservative range?
The relevance of the voting patterns is this. If you look at the totality of civil rights votes (not only the final vote of the 64cra) these statements (made on this thread):
Are demonstratively false.
Also, if you look at the parties from an ideological position, you see that (using DW Nominate) that the republicans have long been to the right of even Southern democrats (with some overlap and excluding civil rights of course). So this statement:
While containing some truth (the parties are more polarized now) is not accurate.
Also, since the distinctly RW party voted for civil rights (all bills and all votes) in a higher percentage than northern democrats, these statements:
Are not accurate.
And finally, the list of opponents to civil rights provides proof that this statement
Is actually a complete flip of the historical record. (and I appreciate mambochicken23 acknowledging the fact)
Manju,
Socratic irony aside, of course it does. Interestingly, I was just comparing 1964 to 1965, side by sid,e to see how different the scores become when, overall, they’re far less weighted by those votes (if, at all).
But my eyes are about to fall out of my head, so I’m taking a little break…
Yeah, I thought so. Obviously the problem is that such a methodology becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
65 probably won’t help since you have the 65cra.
Good analysis though and good idea to try to isolate civil rights. The authors of “Polarized America” address the ADA rankings. I’ll see if I can find that section.
I figured I’d at least compute the more extensive totals for the “nay” groups before I took a well-deserved break from my computer screen, just to see what-if any- trends emerge:
In ’64 6 of the 19 votes were, in varying degrees, CRA related, giving a potential -31% shift in score if they were voted as a block (and I’ll confess that I don’t know enough about the legislation to comment on how likely or necessary this would be); in ’65 there was only 1 of 17 (the Voting Rights Act), so there’s just a -5% margin). Below is ’63-’64′-’65:
Byrd, Harry 59-16-35
Byrd, Robert 0-16-0
Eastland, James 6-0-0
Ellender, Allen 19-11-18
Ervin, Samuel 18-5-0
Fulbright, James 53-28-41
Gore, Albert 80-63-65
Hill, Joseph 44-11-12
Holland, Spessard 35-5-6
Johnston, Olin 41-28-dnp
Jordan, Benjamin 24-5-0
Long, Russell 24-11-65
McClellan, John 5-6-6
Robertson, Absalom 11-6-0
Russell, Richard 16-6-6
Smathers, George 44-11-41
Sparkman, John 60-11-24
Stennis, John 0-5-5
Talmadge, Herman 18-11-12
Thurmond, J 0-5-0
Walters, Herbert 43 (missing 50%+ votes)- 0 -dnp
The Republican nays:
Goldwater, Barry [AZ] 0-0-dnp
Hickenlooper, Bourke [A] 24-11-6
Cotton, Norris [NH] 7-5-12
Meacham, Edwin [NM] 0-0-dnp
Tower, John [TX] 0-0-0
Simpson, Milward [WY] 0-0-0
So all of the Republicans (although Hickenlooper’s a bit of an outlier), and a little less than half of the Democrats, remain (for the most part) consistent. About a quarter of the Democrats likely had their scores hosed down by their votes against the CRA (those with only a single low score in ’64), and a quarter have scores which are difficult to analyze (either by shifts which are significant but well within the margin of block-voting, or large ’63 scores that shift down but stay down, or by missing years).
Of course, this is pointless without analyzing the yay’s in the same manner, and I am fuckin’ burnt. Though if anyone was supremely bored and had the time and inclination, you can cross reference this list with the records here.
I still suspect the scores will still skew toward the center/left, although not nearly as dramatically as my initial post.
At any rate, I’d be very interested to hear what the authors say about the ADA…
Basically,
1. You can’t use it to compare legislators serving at different times
2. Its one dimensional (ie, for our purposes, doesn’t segregate civil rights votes from the others)
3. They only use a handful of votes, whereas DW-Nominate mines thru every roll-call.
You can read their assessment here, beginning at:
http://www.voteview.com/MPRchapter2_rev3.pdf
I’ll see if I can find their individual scores.
So those positions count, but people’s positions on, say, gay marriage, tax policy, public healthcare, social security, and medicare don’t?
Zython, now I am convinced you are just dumb.
In your sentence quoted above, what does “say” mean? Does it mean something like “for example”?
You know , as in “then you have to judge them by all policies : For example” which is what I said.
Idiot.
And from our “I’m not responsible – he made me do it” comes this gem:
And John: Frank brings it on himself … But more importantly, he himself engages in the same kind of behavior that he bemoans … I cannot think of any time that a liberal here has threatened anyone else here with physical violence. I know I certainly haven’t. But Frank has.
And I cannot think of any time that anyone , but one person, has implored another commenter to commit suicide – “for the sake of humanity” – not once , but several times. I know I certainly haven’t.
But you have, Mambochicken, and it was me you were begging to kill himself. Yes, Mambochicken the “I am rational” Science Guy, was asking me to kill myself.
But, no you didn’t threaten anyone with violence , nope, unh uh, not you, no way !
Christopher Foxx :: And on your Facebook page are you having discussions and posting comments similar to what you’re posting here?
No?
Actually, yes, and even more controversial. But keep in mind I also post pleasant and educational things there as well. Things that Dark Avenger wouldn’t even understand (after all, he thinks that “copraphagy” is some highfalutin’ word that nobody knows – ever read Naked Lunch, D umb A ss ? It was written in 1959 – I read it in 1966 ) , let alone find interesting; and that the people here wouldn’t appreciate.
Interestingly, a former liberal poster here found me and Added me as a friend on Facebook, and he has expressed appreciation for some of my postings.
Why don’t you go read D A’s blog, and come back here and tell us what YOU think it’s about?
Better yet – why don’t you go read my Facebook page … You may learn something! I am interested in far more things than politics …
John Burt: I come here less and less, because it has become a ridiculous , mindless ritual for the lefties here to not even bother disputing what I say (as if they even could); they now jump right into ‘abuse mode’ … What do I get out of it ? The satisfaction of knowing that you consider yourselves the best America’s got to offer. And you can’t even persuasively defend your own beliefs without acting like you’ve got bit parts in “The Lord Of The Flies.”
You are everyday living proof that “Liberals should be in government, but never run it.”
1. You can’t use it to compare legislators serving at different times
2. Its one dimensional (ie, for our purposes, doesn’t segregate civil rights votes from the others)
3. They only use a handful of votes, whereas DW-Nominate mines thru every roll-call.
Eh, it seemed like an interesting, back-of-the-envelope, way to map the votes. And, in its (for whatever it’s worth) defense, I glazed over the fact that the 1964 report actually listed the individual votes out, as well as composite scores for the current term in a really obvious way, so all that info was actually easily accessible… and in looking at the block, there are really only a few (< 10 maybe) cases where votes 7-12 drastically changed a score.
But I can accept that the limited sample population makes it less than ideal.
Things that Dark Avenger wouldn’t even understand (after all, he thinks that “copraphagy” is some highfalutin’ word that nobody knows – ever read Naked Lunch, D umb A ss ? It was written in 1959 – I read it in 1966 )
That’s hilarious, Frank, you think I care enough to use a word I might not think you know the meaning of, and considering where you live, Burroughs had this to say:
I bet you played ‘tent’ at night with your father’s Playboy magazine as well.
Really, Renfro?
He doesn’t know you at your rhetorical peak like the owner of this site does:
Why don’t you go read D A’s blog, and come back here and tell us what YOU think it’s about?
Here I document your classy with a K response to Steve Jobs leaving Apple before he died.
Thanks for demonstrating what it’s like to have a coprolite for a brain.
“Dismissing, for a moment, the “D” and “R” designations, why don’t we look at this from a “liberal” and “conservative” perspective?…”
LOL!!! So now OW’s lemmings are playing a new game of “Actually the Democrat Party Didn’t Start Till 1965!!!” You loons are so pathetic, cherry-picking what does and doesn’t stand on your record.
Its actually a great idea…and quite a wonkfest. It takes that wiki N-S breakdown to a whole new level of understanding.
I found the individual DW-Nominate data and converted it to excel. Now we have 2 scores: lib v conserve then pro civil rights v anti.
What’s interesting is that a lot of folks who voted yes on the final bill are revealed by being slightly anti-civil rights.
I’ll try to post the whole thing
And I cannot think of any time that anyone , but one person, has implored another commenter to commit suicide – “for the sake of humanity” – not once , but several times. I know I certainly haven’t.
But you have, Mambochicken, and it was me you were begging to kill himself. Yes, Mambochicken the “I am rational” Science Guy, was asking me to kill myself.
But, no you didn’t threaten anyone with violence , nope, unh uh, not you, no way !
Frank. You ignorant, stupid motherfucker. Asking someone to kill himself is not threatening anyone with violence. I will be glad when you and people like you are dead because you will no longer be fucking things up for the rest of us. You are beyond help, beyond hope, and no amount of reason and no strength of argument will sway you from your ill-conceived positions. You are useless, and a drag on humanity so long as you take breath. So I stand by my requests to you.
But this is not even close to actually threatening to violently assault someone. I have never, ever, threatened to harm anyone here. You have. You’re a truly awful person, Frank, and a ridiculous hypocrite. The world will not mourn you. If that pains you, why don’t you come beat the shit out of me, like you’ve threatened to do to others here?
LOL!!! So now OW’s lemmings are playing a new game of “Actually the Democrat Party Didn’t Start Till 1965!!!” You loons are so pathetic, cherry-picking what does and doesn’t stand on your record.
Ghost, you are even stupider than Frank. First off, it’s “Democratic Party.” Secondly, no one is defending the actions of ’60s-era Southern Democrat fuckweasels. No one. We are all asserting that these are mere historical footnotes that have no bearing on the modern parties. The parties, nowadays, are far more polarized and very different from the makeup of the 1960′s.
And please, figure out a new word other than “lemmings.” Repeating it over and over makes you sound like a complete fucking idiot.
LOL!!! So now OW’s lemmings are playing a new game of “Actually the Democrat Party Didn’t Start Till 1965!!!” You loons are so pathetic, cherry-picking what does and doesn’t stand on your record.
No, just acknowledging that there were- formerly- liberal and conservative wings of both parties. You know, back when “Rockefeller Republican” wasn’t just a pejorative. I would think the actual underlying representative’s values were just as, or more important, than the letter by their name.
But I know you like letters- especially when there’s only one of them in a row! They’re simple, and you can read them all by yourself!
“LOL!!!”? What are you, 12? If, as you think, someone can have their opinion voided simply by the fact that they’re an atheist- then an adult who uses the term LOL in all-caps with three exclamation points should probably be forcibly sterilized and placed in a group home.
Now come on, Ghost- it’s not like you’re going to surprise anyone here. Cut and paste the chain e-mail that you got from your shut-in aunt in Montana, call us lemmings a few times, and then disappear from the thread when your bullshit is easily disposed of (often, and conveniently, in the same links that you post).
Just dumb.
Here is the breakdown for the 88th Congress-Senate (1963-1965). This encompasses more than a few civil rights votes as well as a lot of the War on Poverty.
Its ranked from most Evil to Less. The closer to 1 the first score, the more evil. A negative score puts one on the pro-civil rights side.
The the last score is ideology. a negative score now is liberal, and the closer to 1 the more conservative. Hope this formats OK:
0.999 [D] RUSSELL GEORGIA 0.022
0.998 [D] ELLENDER LOUISIA -0.070
0.998 [D] TALMADGE GEORGIA -0.065
0.988 [D] JOHNSTON SOUTH C -0.154
0.984 [D] STENNIS MISSISS -0.027
0.983 [D] ERVIN NORTH C -0.003
0.961 [D] EASTLAND MISSISS 0.054
0.946 [D] THURMOND SOUTH C 0.321
0.943 [D] MCCLELLAN ARKANSA 0.038
0.931 [D] FULBRIGHT ARKANSA -0.365
0.925 [D] JORDAN B. NORTH C -0.066
0.882 [D] LONG R. LOUISIA -0.169
0.852 [D] HILL ALABAMA -0.253
0.846 [D] WALTERS TENNESS -0.140
0.815 [D] PROXMIRE WISCONS-0.579
0.792 [D] SPARKMAN ALABAMA -0.188
0.768 [D] ROBERTSON VIRGINI 0.097
0.725 [D] SMATHERS FLORIDA -0.130
0.720 [D] BYRD R. WEST VI -0.297
0.710 [D] GRUENING ALASKA -0.704
0.622 [D] HOLLAND FLORIDA 0.022
0.620 [D] GORE TENNESS -0.343
0.577 [D] BYRD H. VIRGINI 0.208
0.559 [D] YARBOROUGH TEXAS -0.423
0.517 [D] BIBLE NEVADA -0.188
0.505 [D] CANNON NEVADA -0.201
0.496 [D] BARTLETT ALASKA -0.496
0.406 [D] MANSFIELD MONTANA -0.429
0.405 [D] MORSE OREGON -0.914
0.398 [D] KEFAUVER TENNESS -0.435
0.398 [D] BURDICK NORTH D -0.360
0.383 [D] MONRONEY OKLAHOM -0.264
0.367 [D] METCALF MONTANA -0.482
0.338 [D] HAYDEN ARIZONA -0.221
0.299 [D] RANDOLPH WEST VI -0.242
0.295 [D] CHURCH IDAHO -0.380
0.275 [D] EDMONDSON OKLAHOM -0.201
0.233 [D] SYMINGTON MISSOUR -0.312
0.223 [D] ANDERSON NEW MEX -0.204
0.217 [D] HARTKE INDIANA -0.420
0.193 [R] YOUNG M.R. NORTH D 0.188
0.181 [D] NELSON WISCONS -0.569
0.181 [D] MCGOVERN SOUTH D -0.568
0.167 [D] MOSS UTAH -0.395
0.161 [D] MAGNUSON WASHING -0.319
0.144 [D] MCGEE WYOMING -0.241
0.105 [D] ENGLE CALIFOR -0.210
0.104 [D] INOUYE HAWAII -0.341
0.066 [D] LONG E. MISSOUR -0.310
0.066 [D] MCINTYRE NEW HAM -0.280
0.059 [D] JACKSON WASHING -0.297
0.036 [D] NEUBERGER OREGON -0.681
0.036 [D] MCCARTHY MINNESO -0.437
0.015 [D] BAYH INDIANA -0.411
0.008 [R] CURTIS NEBRASK 0.506
-0.004 [R] MUNDT SOUTH D 0.281
-0.021 [D] SALINGER CALIFOR -0.472
-0.052 [D] DODD CONNECT -0.211
-0.057 [D] JOHNSON USA -0.335
-0.062 [R] HRUSKA NEBRASK 0.464
-0.072 [D] MUSKIE MAINE -0.387
-0.082 [R] MECHEN NEW MEX 0.553
-0.084 [D] MCNAMARA MICHIGA -0.581
-0.108 [D] HUMPHREY MINNESO -0.404
-0.116 [D] BREWSTER MARYLAN -0.249
-0.118 [R] TOWER TEXAS 0.474
-0.160 [D] PASTORE RHODE I -0.262
-0.179 [D] YOUNG OHIO -0.353
-0.237 [R] CARLSON KANSAS 0.241
-0.278 [R] SIMPSON WYOMING 0.680
-0.283 [D] LAUSCHE OHIO 0.218
-0.319 [D] PELL RI -0.354
-0.322 [R] HICKENLOOPE IOWA 0.384
-0.329 [R] COTTON NEW HAM 0.412
-0.332 [R] GOLDWATER ARIZONA 0.672
-0.333 [D] CLARK PENNSYL -0.593
-0.339 [R] BENNETT UTAH 0.460
-0.353 [D] RIBICOFF CONNECT -0.325
-0.353 [R] JORDAN L. IDAHO 0.377
-0.390 [D] HART MICHIGA -0.482
-0.392 [D] WILLIAMS H NEW JER -0.353
-0.408 [R] MORTON KENTUCK 0.212
-0.415 [R] MILLER IOWA 0.326
-0.420 [R] WILLIAMS J DELAWAR 0.610
-0.425 [R] SMITH M.C. MAINE 0.112
-0.429 [D] KENNEDY E. MASSACH -0.479
-0.444 [R] DOMINICK COLORAD 0.376
-0.445 [R] ALLOTT COLORAD 0.315
-0.473 [R] COOPER KENTUCK 0.077
-0.494 [R] AIKEN VERMONT 0.065
-0.498 [R] DIRKSEN ILLINOI 0.328
-0.515 [R] PEARSON KANSAS 0.140
-0.526 [D] KENNEDY USA -0.495
-0.551 [R] BEALL MARYLAN 0.179
-0.568 [R] SALTONSTALL MASSACH 0.187
-0.569 [R] FONG HAWAII 0.174
-0.604 [R] PROUTY VERMONT 0.177
-0.645 [R] KUCHEL CALIFOR 0.103
-0.687 [R] BOGGS DELAWAR 0.210
-0.813 [D] DOUGLAS ILLINOI -0.582
-0.864 [R] SCOTT PENNSYL 0.169
-0.941 [R] KEATING NEW YOR 0.124
-0.988 [R] JAVITS NEW YOR -0.157
-0.993 [R] CASE NEW JER -0.120
This quanititive analysis stuff hasn’t gotten out to the public outside of Nate Silver and occasionally Paul Krugman and Matt Yglesias, and they don’t highlight the civil rights stuff.
I dare say it could revolutionize the way folks think about civil rights and ideology. I contacted Prof Poole just to see if I was reading his charts correctly. I think I’ll forward the excel spreadsheet to him for vetting. Also to the NAACP, since they did something similar but in real time.
Raw data: http://voteview.com/SENATE_SORT88.HTM
Manju: “Your capacity for denial is impressive.”
Projection.
From Willie Stark on February 2, 2012 at 1:55 pm
CRA of 1964
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)
Of course, this whole argument is merely an attempt to claim Democrats are the real racists, because 50 years ago the party dominated the racist south. This ignores the fact that today the Republicans are still using racism and bigotry to win elections.
It’s just an attempt to use history to shout, “Look over there!”
Becasue left-wing scholars who focus on income-inequality have a vested interest in claiming that Democrats are the real racists. oooookaaaaaay!
There are only 22 southern senators, so the South didn’t numerically dominate the Dems. In order to kill civil rights, they needed help from the North (or non-Southern).
This help is not reflected in the final votes of any CRA, since very few Northerners would dare do that. Instead, they made sure bills never got to the floor. That’s why Malcolm X said this:
And that’s why there is a huge disparity between the Northern Dems final vote, and their actual civil-rights score. Carl Hayden of AZ for example was a known civil rights villain. He tried to stop the 64cra from even getting a vote. But once it hit the floor, he voted yes.
Ergo, separating Dixiecrats from Northern Dems is an artificial separation, and deceptive if not used with other metrics. After all, they belonged to the same party. Steveson ran twice with segregationist VPs. JFK too (yes, LBJ was one at the time). How does one separate the President from his Vice-President? The final vote on CRAs fails to reflect this relationship. As Malcolm X confirms:
(Because there aren’t enough insanely long lists in this thread…)
Do you have the vote #s which they counted? Apologies if I missed them (which is likely)- I just want to get a practical sense of how the ranks are assigned, and I’m definitely more of a “by example” than “pure math” sort of person. Plus, I’m pretty much addicted to looking up obscure vote tallies at this point…
AwkwardSilence,
I don’t have that…I’m going off ”Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches.”
But I was also taken aback by how low Northern Dems scored so I contacted Prof Poole. He told me that school busing in the 50′s and 60′s hit their score and referred me over to two other books that go thru the methodology in more detail:
“Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting” and its second edition: “Ideology and Congress”.
“Of course, this whole argument is merely an attempt to claim Democrats are the real racists, because 50 years ago the party dominated the racist south.”
Plus, it ignores the fact that more Democrats voted for CRA1964 than Republicans in both North and South.
C.S.Strowbridge: “Of course…”
Manju says: “Becasue…”
Of course you ignore the facts and continue this same disproved argument.
Prodigal says: “Plus, it ignores the fact that more Democrats voted for CRA1964 than Republicans in both North and South.”
And he will run away from that fact every time you bring it up.
Me: “50 years ago the party dominated the racist south.”
Manju says: “There are only 22 southern senators, so the South didn’t numerically dominate the Dems.”
This is proof you are not worth debating. You are stupid. You are stupid to the point you are not worth debating.
That’s not ignored at all. I assure you that these scholars took the 64cra final vote into consideration when they demonstrated that Republicans had a stronger voting record on civil rights than Northern Democrats.
They also took into account that no Republican Senator voted against the 57cra and that more Republican congressional representatives voted for it than democrats. They also took into account that Democrats in the Senate in 57, led by Majority Leader LBJ, killed what was the 64 cra in 57. Black folks were killed because of this evil.
Yet you want to erase this from history. Disgusting.
“And please, figure out a new word other than “lemmings.” Repeating it over and over makes you sound like a complete fucking idiot…”
Right! And you calling anyone who dares to disagree with you “stupid” much less wishing death upon them clearly shows that you’re NOT a coward much less really, really angry and possibly psychotic….idiot lemming.
“This ignores the fact that today the Republicans are still using racism and bigotry to win elections….”
Well, we now know that according to MSNBC (i.e. Obama’s Re-election Network) that any criticism of Barry is officially “RACIST!!!” And gee, I guess that wasn’t Hillary Clinton using the racist Southern Strategy against then-senator Obama during the ’08 primaries. Or how about former Obama rival and CURRENT VP Joe Biden who once told a reporter during an interview that Obama is the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean”? Of course I could go on and on with racist actions by “Northern” Democrats in the last 50 years, but why bother when the usual lemmings here will move the goal posts again on what counts as being “RACIST!!!”
I mentioned before that the equivalent of the 1964cra was passed by the House in 57, only to be gutted by LBJ & Co in the Senate. This was done by using procedural votes, since most News organizations did not report such esoteric maneuvers as they would final votes.
One such maneuver is below. Here is a procedural vote to send the 57 bill to the viciously racist Senate Judiciary Committee, run by one James Eastland, Lifelong Segregationist Dem from MS and (remember this) early supporter of JFK’s Presidential campaign.
1957: HR 6127, REFERRAL TO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
Aye = Evil
Nay = Good
AL Aye Hill, Joseph [D]
AL Aye Sparkman, John [D]
AR Aye Fulbright, James [D]
AR Aye McClellan, John [D]
AZ Aye Goldwater, Barry [R]
AZ Aye Hayden, Carl [D]
CA Nay Knowland, William [R]
CA Nay Kuchel, Thomas [R]
CO Nay Allott, Gordon [R]
CO Nay Carroll, John [D]
CT Nay Bush, Prescott [R]
CT Nay Purtell, William [R]
DE Aye Frear, Joseph [D]
DE Aye Williams, John [R]
FL Aye Holland, Spessard [D]
FL Aye Smathers, George [D]
GA Aye Talmadge, Herman [D]
GA Aye Russell, Richard [D]
IA Nay Hickenlooper, Bourke [R]
IA No Vote Martin, Thomas [R]
ID Nay Church, Frank [D]
ID Nay Dworshak, Henry [R]
IL Nay Dirksen, Everett [R]
IL Nay Douglas, Paul [D]
IN Nay Jenner, William [R]
IN
KS Nay Carlson, Frank [R]
KS Nay Schoeppel, Andrew [R]
KY Nay Cooper, John [R]
KY Nay Morton, Thruston [R]
LA Aye Ellender, Allen [D]
LA Aye Long, Russell [D]
MA Aye Kennedy, John [D]
MA Nay Saltonstall, Leverett [R]
MD Nay Beall, James [R]
MD Nay Butler, John [R]
ME No Vote Payne, Frederick [R]
ME Nay Smith, Margaret [R]
MI Nay McNamara, Patrick [D]
MI Nay Potter, Charles [R]
MN Nay Humphrey, Hubert [D]
MN Nay Thye, Edward [R]
MO Nay Hennings, Thomas [D]
MO Nay Symington, William [D]
MS Aye Eastland, James [D]
MS Aye Stennis, John [D]
MT Aye Mansfield, Michael [D]
MT Aye Murray, James [D]
NC Aye Ervin, Samuel [D]
NC Aye Scott, William [D]
ND No Vote Langer, William [R]
ND Aye Young, Milton [R]
NE Nay Curtis, Carl [R]
NE Nay Hruska, Roman [R]
NH Present Bridges, Henry [R]
NH Nay Cotton, Norris [R]
NJ Nay Case, Clifford [R]
NJ No Vote Smith, Howard [R]
NM Aye Anderson, Clinton [D]
NM Present Chavez, Dennis [D]
NV Aye Bible, Alan [D]
NV Aye Malone, George [R]
NY Nay Ives, Irving [R]
NY Nay Javits, Jacob [R]
OH Nay Bricker, John [R]
OH Aye Lausche, Frank [D]
OK Aye Kerr, Robert [D]
OK
OR Aye Morse, Wayne [D]
OR Nay Neuberger, Richard [D]
PA Nay Clark, Joseph [D]
PA Nay Martin, Edward [R]
RI No Vote Green, Theodore [D]
RI Nay Pastore, John [D]
SC Aye Johnston, Olin [D]
SC Aye Thurmond, J. [D]
SD Nay Case, Francis [R]
SD Aye Mundt, Karl [R]
TN Aye Kefauver, Carey [D]
TN Aye Gore, Albert [D]
TX Aye Johnson, Lyndon [D]
TX Aye Yarborough, Ralph [D]
UT Nay Bennett, Wallace [R]
UT Nay Watkins, Arthur [R]
VA Aye Robertson, Absalom [D]
VA Aye Byrd, Harry [D]
VT Nay Aiken, George [R]
VT Present Flanders, Ralph [R]
WA Nay Jackson, Henry [D]
WA Aye Magnuson, Warren [D]
WI Nay Wiley, Alexander [R]
WI
WV No Vote Neely, Matthew [D]
WV Nay Revercomb, William [R]
WY Nay Barrett, Frank [R]
WY Aye O’Mahoney, Joseph [D]
Check out JFK’s anf LBJ vote. Behind the scenes, like this, is how they practiced their evil.
LBJ and JFK were evil?
And Strom Thurmond was to the left of Thomas Dewey?
Woozy Wowzers.
Manju,
It’s surprising to see you quoting Malcolm X. When did he die again?
Then I think I pointed out before that you limit yourself by defining the “South” as the Confederate 11.
Further your application of good/evil based on a procedural vote is dubious. Scoop Jackson-Good Warren Magnuson-Evil?
But most of all; other than Mr. Strowbridge’s “Democrats are the real racists” suggestion; where are you going with this for the 21st Century? Theodore Roosevelt (R) was less racist than Woodrow Wilson (D). BFD
Awkward,
I should have said this last night, but your usual excellent research job.
Why is that surprising? Conservative Dems have long been generally to left of liberal republicans, on issues other than traditional civil rights…if you define “left” as being pro civil rights.
Don’t we consider Clinton to the left of Dole? Carter to the left of Nixon?
At the end of the day, Dixecrats were part of the New Deal Coalition. Here are all the known votes for the senators from the 11 confederate states on the 1935 Social Security Act, which includes 1 former Klansman (not the usual suspect). This doesn’t exactly scream “arch-conservative.”
Alabama
Aye Bankhead, John [D]
Aye Black, Hugo [D]
Arkansas
Aye Caraway, Hattie [D]
Aye Robinson, Joseph [D]
Florida
Aye Fletcher, Duncan [D]
Aye Trammell, Park [D]
Georgia
Aye George, Walter [D]
Louisiana
Aye Overton, John [D]
Mississippi
Aye Bilbo, Theodore [D]
Aye Harrison, Byron [D]
North Carolina
Aye Bailey, Josiah [D]
Aye Reynolds, Robert [D]
Tennessee
Aye McKellar, Kenneth [D]
Texas
Aye Sheppard, Morris [D]
Aye Connally, Thomas [D]
South Carolina
Aye Byrnes, James [D]
Not Voting Smith, Ellison [D]
Another thing that Manju and his fellow trolls keep desperately trying to ignore or handwave away is the adoption of a civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic party platform:
We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.
No doubt because of how it makes their OJ-like bleatings about who the “real racists” are look even more ridiculous.
What they practiced in ‘57 was evil. Allow me to reference one our Nation’s premier civil rights scholars: William H. Chafe.
If you recall, during the ’08 Dem Primary, there was a kerfuffle when Hillary Clinton said, in reference to “false hope” that; that “It took a president [LBJ]to get it [Dr. King’s dream] done.” Many white liberals couldn’t figure out why this was offensive.
So, a major civil rights scholar stepped in to illuminate them. Basically, its also took an LBJ to stop civil rights:
Manju,
Just for it, I’d hardly call Bob Dole & Dick Nixon “Liberal Republicans”. Though in the current atmosphere, I’d doubt either would pass Tea party muster.
And thank you for the Social Security list. Theodore Bilbo made at least one vote in his life of which I’d be proud.
Would it be appropriate to respond to someone arguing that Nixon ran a Southern Strategy by pointing out that the 1972 Republican platform had a strong civil rights plank? Does that refute the evidence that Nixon ran race-based strategy?
If not, then the 1948 plank does not erase what Northern dems did to support for Jim Crow…though I don’t take issue with either one being considered.
And at the end of the day, none of that is relevent to where the parties stand today.
Huh? You never heard of the Filibuster. Look at the rather large majorities voting for civil rights. One might ask, with that level of support, why did it take so long and what exactly was so difficult about getting it passed? As William Chafe points out, “[LBJ] subverted efforts to end Southern senators’ ability to filibuster civil rights bills to death.”
It was about procedure. Indeed, most scholars regard the cloture vote as more important than the final one.
Well, it’s a degree of evil. Obviously, the guys on top are the central villains and then you have enablers below them. That’s why procedure is important. The villains didn’t have enough votes to kill civil rights outright.
Scoop was solidly pro-civil rights afak.
“Don’t we consider Clinton to the left of Dole? Carter to the left of Nixon?”
Do we consider George Wallace to the left of Dole and Nixon?
If someone claims that the civil war was not about slavery, I would hope you would not ask the person doing the correcting what relevance this has to the 21st century.
Various commentators here put forth denialistc narratives. “Racism of his youth”, says Prodigal. I fail to see why liberals should be held to lower standards than neo-confederates.
OK…the list has 2 dimensions. Strom and Wallace would actually be to the “right” of Dole and Nixon on one of those dimensions: civil rights.
But on the other dimension (economics) they (at least Wallace would be) are certainly to the left. (Wallace was an ardent New Dealer, so much so that he was able to win the black vote).
Granted, the general (liberal) public doesn’t see it that way but the public doesn’t see a lot. RWIngers also have stupid ideas, like JFK and Mao both being lefties (and by implication, on the same team). But these are political scientists, and their research explains how segregationists could be so comfortable within the left-wing party. They shared a similar economic ideology.
Then why did Thurmond and Wallace feel compeled to seek the presidency outside the party?
Because of the difference between them and the liberal wing on the 2nd dimension (civil rights), not the first.
Ergo, Wallace in remembered only for his 2nd dimension, which is labeled conservative. The public thinks of him as a Segregationists, not a New Dealer.
He did return to the fold though.
Right! And you calling anyone who dares to disagree with you “stupid” much less wishing death upon them clearly shows that you’re NOT a coward much less really, really angry and possibly psychotic….idiot lemming.
1) I don’t simply call people who disagree with me “stupid.” You’re overly simplifying what I do. I call people who disagree with me because of stupid reasons, “stupid.” I have no problem with disagreement, but I ask that the disagreement be based on something reasonable.
2) How does wishing for another’s death “cowardly”? I have perfectly legitimate reasons to want certain people to be dead and gone forever. It’s fucking stupid to think that the world wouldn’t be better off without some people on it. People like you and Frank do not appear to contribute anything positive to the world. You can FOAD, for all I care.
3) I am angry. Sure. I admit that. I think it was George Carlin that said, “If you’re not pissed off, then you haven’t been paying attention.” Doubtful that I am psychotic, though, and I don’t think you’re qualified to make the judgment in any case.
4) You are a fuckwit.
Manju,
I’m hopelessly off-topic but I’d urge you to read the chapter in C. Northcote Parkinson’s book, “Parkinson’s Laws”. While many are familiar with his “work expands to fill the time allotted to it’s completion”, he also had a very informative chapter on how seating the the British Parliament effects the voting.
In short, since parliament sits on two rows of benches facing each other, it is easy to see who is on your team & who opposed. Guys on your benches are wise, erudite, and statesmanlike. Guys on the other benches are demagogues and snake-oil salesmen. Parkinson points out that the French sit in a large semi-circle so it is impossible to tell where one member stands except to the left of M. X & to the right of M. Y. Thus the French Deputies actually have to listen to the debates to understand what is going on. The US has followed the French practice though blessedly not to the extent of holding the debates in French.
I think you’ve hit the key point here. viz. EVERY Senator is going to cast some votes you’re unhappier about than others. Deal with it; they’re on your side. EVERY Senator is going to cast some votes you’re more pleased with than others. Deal with it; they’re on the other team & it really doesn’t matter.
Were someone to go on for three days solid about how the Civil War was about slavery; I’d be inclined to ask why we are spending days on an issue that was generally agreed 150 years ago. The Civil war was about State’s Rights! And my answer is “What Right?” “Well the State’s Rights!” “Yes, but to do what? The right to hold others in bondage.” The economic argument works roughly the same way, the key to the “Southern Economy” was slave labor. You can’t avoid slavery as the issue, no matter how you’d try to disguise it.
It was conceded a while ago that the Democratic Party has a segregationist wing until the late 60s. I posted that there were some (many) Republicans of the 20th Century for whom I could have voted with pleasure.
You’ve noted that we can not judge any of these men by only one vote, you need to look at the totality of their career.
I remember reading a book (I forget which but books on tape tend to not stick with me. Doris Kerns’?) about Lyndon in the Senate where in 1957 he said he was going to get the best “N*gger Bill” he could out of the segregationists and to the segregationists stating that some sort of “N*gger Bill” was going to pass so they should make the best compromise possible.
In short, I think we’ve spent the best part of three days more or less agreeing about things.
Asking someone to kill himself is not threatening anyone with violence.
No, it’s not even the suggestion of violence – why, it’s not even wishing a person harm. No, it’s just a friendly suggestion made in passing.
Are you a fucking goon, Mambo? Jesus Christ! What kind of a fucking douchebag are you?
You know what ? I wouldn’t dirty my hands kicking your ass!
I will be glad when you and people like you are dead
Real nice … spoken like one of the 21st Century Elite …
You know what your most fitting punishment would be for being the most supercilious, patronizing, condescending windbag it has ever been my misfortune to encounter?
THAT YOU SHOULD NEVER DIE !
That’s right! Carry that miserable , arrogant, spittle flecked carcass around for the next thousand years , until there is no one left on Earth from Anchorage to Christchurch that doesn’t know what an overblown self-congratulating buffoon you are !
And you teach young people ? No wonder California’s all fucked up ! They let Nazis like you teach their kids …
Is there not one of you lefties with the sense, the character , the integrity to criticize Mambochicken ?! He can’t even admit the he wanted me to kill myself !
He had to back track and say he only wished I was dead!
ONLY!?!?
And not one of you has anything to say?
You will be reminded of this, every time you make any mention of “the violent right” , or “right wing terrorism” .
You are all moral cowards, and I will happy to see Obama crushed in 2012 , and see you all vanish into the night, where you belong …
And remember, when he loses : Diebold ! Diebold ! Hanging chads !
Is there not one of you lefties with the sense, the character , the integrity to criticize Mambochicken ?! He can’t even admit the he wanted me to kill myself !
I wouldn’t want you to kill yourself, Frank, I’m quite content that you’ll probably die after agonizing complications from your chronic illnesses and/or the consequences of drinking like a fish for so many years.
Really, Frank, few of us lefties would morn your passing, why don’t you hold a pity party on your Facebook page instead of boring us with your abomably imitation of an Irish martyr?
This is what people think of a moral coward, Frank.
Haha, it’s funny because Frank is making fun of a cancer patient.
I will happy to see Obama crushed in 2012 , and see you all vanish into the night, where you belong …
I’ll be glad to see you weep tears of frustration at the results of the 2012 election, although you won’t learn anything from it, as usual.
“Asking someone to kill himself is not threatening anyone with violence.”
Frank DiSalle says: “No, it’s not even the suggestion of violence…”
He said threat of violence. I know you are stupid, but take the time to read what someone says.
Frank DiSalle says: “Is there not one of you lefties with the sense, the character , the integrity to criticize Mambochicken ?!”
You are a piece of shit Frank. When you die, the world will be a better place. You have proved this over and over again on this very site.
I won’t mourn your death any more than I would the death of the average member of Stormfront.
Mr. Strowbridge,
When did this thread become about Frank?
Much as I respect & appreciate your comments, I really feel you’re missing the mark here. When you allow Frank to turn this into “They were mean to me”; you’re only playing his game & getting mired in an unwinnable discussion. “They’re mean to me & No we weren’t.” can go on forever. It’s all subjective.
I’ve said before, there seems to be something in Frank that revels in personal insults & vindictiveness & he will start it if he feels the want.
When we spend out time focused on Frank, we are not concentrating on the relevant issues at hand.
But I was also taken aback by how low Northern Dems scored so I contacted Prof Poole. He told me that school busing in the 50′s and 60′s hit their score and referred me over to two other books that go thru the methodology in more detail:
The ideological dimension seems to map well, but some of the positions on the good/evil dimension just don’t seem to make any sense (on the surface, at least), and I wish I could see the votes considered, and how they’re weighted.
For example, let’s look at Carl Hayden (D, Arizona) and John Tower (R, Texas).
Hayden voted for all of the major civil rights bills- ’57, ’64, ’65, and ’68.
Tower has a pass on ’57 (he wasn’t in office), voted against both ’64 and ’65, and for some reason, is not on the roll for ’68 (I have no idea why, and neither, apparently, does Google). In 1983 he voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday.
They both, however, voted against invoking cloture on the Southern fillibuster.
Additionally, I tripped over one other random cra related vote, which was:
Hayden took a pass, but Tower voted against.
So even acknowledging that there are other votes not being tabulated, it seems really counter-intuitive that Tower would not only eclipse Hayden, but end up on the “good” end of the spectrum. Additionally, how does Hayden end up not only on the evil end, but decidedly evil. It seems like it would take a lot of anti-busing votes just to wash him down to even.
Do they take all CR bill related amendment votes into consideration? Because it seems like a cheap way that a senator could “score” points, especially when the vote’s “morality” becomes much more subjective.
As even if Hayden is voting to keep these bills off the floor and Tower is voting to bring them, the latter would imply support (from a score perspective) that just isn’t there.
Understandably, Hayden served for many years that I’m not examining, but there didn’t seem to be a lot of CR related votes flying around before the 1950′s. Likewise, Tower remained in office through the mid-80′s, but even if he had a change of heart, he’d flubbed the most important votes.
Needless to say, I’m really curious about the specifics which would rank them in such a (to the naked eye) inverted manner.
I should have said this last night, but your usual excellent research job.
Much appreciated, DB.
Whoops- for quick reference, here are the Hayden/Tower scores:
.338 [D] HAYDEN ARIZONA -0.221
-0.118 [R] TOWER TEXAS 0.474
Although, now that I look at it- were the scores for that term only, or lifetime averages?
You are all moral cowards, and I will happy to see Obama crushed in 2012 , and see you all vanish into the night, where you belong …
Wow, someone fell off the wagon again. Only a miserable drunk codger would believe that the Magic Mormon will defeat Obama.
In your dreams, Disalle. You remember those dreams, right? When you were younger, healthier, happier? Oh, never mind. That wasn’t your life. That was somebody else.
“I have no problem with disagreement, but I ask that the disagreement be based on something reasonable….”
Oh right, an admitted angry leftwing sycophant and borderline psycho gets to define who’s “reasonable”.
“How does wishing for another’s death “cowardly”?”
No, it’s not cowardly at all. Statistics show that not only do most blog commemters wish death upon those who dare to disagree with them, but these are fine, average-day folks with a life, family and friends.
“I am angry. Sure. I admit that. I think it was George Carlin…”
Except Carlin was a legendary comedian, brilliant satirist and a renowned atheist who bashed liberals and conservatives in his acts. You’re just an idiot lemming who threatens people from behind the anonymity of his keyboard.
“You are a fuckwit.”
What are you? 12? Grow up.
Zython, now I am convinced you are just dumb.
Well, you’ve demonstrated that it doesn’t take a whole lot to convince you of holding stupid ideas, so whatever.
In your sentence quoted above, what does “say” mean? Does it mean something like “for example”?
Yes, that’s what it means, dumbass.
You know , as in “then you have to judge them by all policies : For example” which is what I said.
Except you “cleverly” omitted the policies I mentioned, which tells a more complicated story.
No, it’s not even the suggestion of violence – why, it’s not even wishing a person harm. No, it’s just a friendly suggestion made in passing.
Especially if they say “please” first.
Is there not one of you lefties with the sense, the character , the integrity to criticize Mambochicken ?! He can’t even admit the he wanted me to kill myself !
Would you, say, condemn Moonbat Monitor if he came to the defense of lying for political gain? No, you wouldn’t, because you didn’t. Seems that being a moral crusader is only worthwhile if you personally benefit.
AwkwardSilence,
I’m surprised about Tower too, but thrilled to see Hayden finally get his comeuppance…after hiding behind that meaningless “yes” vote on the 64cra all these year’s. After checking a couple of data points, you are right: these do appear to be lifetime scores. Hayden was ancient, so his long history of opposing civil rights probably caught up with him.
I’m not sure how Tower gets away with it. Prof Poole did say that it was busing “and related issues” that hit Northern dems score, so there could be a lot more to traditional civil rights than the famous acts and presumably he got a jolt there.
I see Tower voted for the ‘82 voting rights act, so that may have improved his score relative to others who were out of congress by that time. My other guess is that post-64, he had little incentive to try to kill bills in committee (because as a republican he wants to see the democratic party come apart at the seams, whereas in 64 he’s trying to get dixiecrats to support Goldwater, which they proceed to do). Probably those no-shows on final votes then get inked as a net-positive, since he’s on record as voting yes to bring bills to the floor.
But at this point its above my paygrade. I’ll ask one of the Professors at some point, maybe on their blog. The Monkey cage is a good place to keep on top of this discipline, if you are interested. Also, here is Nate Silver on DW-Nominate:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/how-liberal-is-president-obama/
This thread tells me a few things…
Oliver doesn’t really care too much about this blog anymore, seeing how his MM gig and his new ‘entertainment’ blog get the most of his time now.
He really should do Open Threads more often, to let people post topics that are completely random, thereby ensuring that each thread won’t get derailed by Manjit and his obsession with Robert Byrd
“Would it be appropriate to respond to someone arguing that Nixon ran a Southern Strategy by pointing out that the 1972 Republican platform had a strong civil rights plank? Does that refute the evidence that Nixon ran race-based strategy?”
No, because that has nothing to do with the fact that, asNixon’s own people have admitted, Nixon’s campaign was actively courting the racist vote.
Responding to an idiot like yourself who keeps claiming that the Democrats were the party of racism by pointing out the civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic party platform, however…
Let me break this down.
When countering the argument that Nixon courted the racist vote, it’s inappropriate to point to his ’72 pro-civil rights plank because “Nixon’s campaign was actively courting the racist vote”. OK.
But yet, its appropriate to point to ‘48 pro civil rights plank in response to someone “claiming that the Democrats were the party of racism”. Presumably, this mean that Democrats were not “actively counting the racist vote.”
Well, iirc, the Dixicrats who bolted because of that very platform (along with Truman’s desegregation of the Armed forces) came back to the fold with Truman urging them to. Indeed, one of them was rewarded with the VP slot. Here’s what that asshole said when Ike tried to enforce Brown v Board:
The Dems electoral map for the next two elections looked basically like George Wallace’s. Perhaps those GA and MS voters just really liked Liberal Icon Adlai Stevenson’s intellectual demeanor. Does that sound realistic?
Or perhaps Dems actively courted the racist vote, you fucking idiot!
Manju says: “Let me break this down.”
Insiders admitted they courted the racist vote. They’ve been doing so for 40 years.
Yelling, “Look over there” won’t erase the previous 40 years of political campaigning.
Manju,
You’re leaving out the appeal that Gen. Eisenhower had to the electorate. Center-Right in his day (Far Left to the Tea party today). But Stevenson in ’56 & Goldwater in ’64 bear strong resemblances.
Burn,
“Wow, someone fell off the wagon again. Only a miserable drunk codger would believe that the Magic Mormon will defeat Obama.”
The polls I’ve seen have the election boiling down to VA, OH, & FL. A small change of only a few votes will turn all three “red” & give us President Romney. I am not drunk. I’ll leave miserable & codger for you all to decide. But I’ll repeat Han Solo’s advice, “Don’t get cocky, kid.”
Snowbridge, in all fairness to Maniu, “look over there” is the closest thing he has to an actual argument.
Correct. As I implied in my question to Prodigal, the strong civil rights plank in the 1972 Republican platform does not erase the evidence that Nixon ran race-based strategy.
Likewise, Prodigals use of the ’48 platform amounts does not erase the fact that Dems courted the racist vote. I mean, if you have one of those very renegade ‘48 Dixiecrats on your presidential ticket, you are not just courting the racist vote, you are the head-racist in charge. As Malcom X said:
The level of whitewashing you and Prodigal routinely engage in is really jawdropping. Almost neo-confederate level at times.
Giving idiot Manyu (but I repeat myself),
You keep arguing that the Democratic party had racism as one of its fundamental values. The 1948 party platform’s civil rights plank is one of the things that proves that you’re a liar. The way you keep trying to handwave that away is one of the things that proves you’re a really stupid liar.
But at this point its above my paygrade.
Oh, join the club… Since I haven’t dusted off a statistics book since early college, I’ve been well over my head for most of this conversation. But, heck, it passes the time…
At this point it’s all academic, since we’re really just trying to micro-manage the way numbers sort through an algorithm. But just for the sake of fun, I’ll say that:
I see Tower voted for the ‘82 voting rights act, so that may have improved his score relative to others who were out of congress by that time. My other guess is that post-64, he had little incentive to try to kill bills in committee (because as a republican he wants to see the democratic party come apart at the seams, whereas in 64 he’s trying to get dixiecrats to support Goldwater, which they proceed to do). Probably those no-shows on final votes then get inked as a net-positive, since he’s on record as voting yes to bring bills to the floor.
Doesn’t really compute, in the context of this narrative. If Hayden’s ’64 CRA vote was ‘meaningless’ (even in light of his other three positive votes to landmark-ish CRA legislation at the tail end of his career), then Tower’s vote just to continute existing CRA law- in the more enlightened 80′s- would have to seem like even less of a gesture, and certainly not enough to buoy his score into a net positive (especially in light of his vote against the MLK holiday, which seems like middle finger aimed right at the CRA- or, as Ron Paul put it, a stand against “Hate Whitey” day).
Also in light of the fact that, after voting consistently with the Dixiecrats in the 60′s, his votes seem to coincide with Jesse Helms’s quite a bit as we move into the late 70′s early 80′s. I say this with only a small degree of confidence, however, as I have only skimmed a few of the years (and there are what looks like at least two cases where he votes with Helms on a few failed amendments to gut CR legislation, but then ends up voting for the final bill anyway). I’d examine this further, but I live in Boston, and it’s a national holiday today, and my girlfriend is going to fucking murder me if I don’t help her chop shit for our little Super Bowl soirree…
Anyhow, if you hear any more from the poli-sci guys, please pass it on- I’d definitely be interested in what they say.
Go Pats.
Manju,
Once again you’re quoting Malcolm X on the status of the American Political system.
First off he died in what, the early 1960′s & so is hardly relevant today.
Second, he was a deeply embittered man who hated the America of his day & advocated a strictly apartheid system where Negroes would have their own country. Is that what you’re suggesting?
Third, I’d point out that the Dixiecrats existed in 1948 because they did not feel adequately represented by Truman & the Democrats of 1948.
Fourth, No one is arguing that the Democrats did not have a segregationist wing into the 1960′s. Are you arguing that that wing lasted much beyond 1970?
As you can see I’m still puzzled by what you are standing for. We agreed a long time ago that there were both Democrats & Republicans deserving either praise or blame during the 1950s & 1960s.
Awkward,
Sorry Old Boy.
That civil rights plank from the 1948 Democratic party platform that Manlu keeps trying to dismiss as irrelevant was the exact thing that caused the Dixiecrats to leave the Democratic party, as it happens.
No, it’s not even the suggestion of violence – why, it’s not even wishing a person harm.
I do wish you harm. The point is that I’ve never threatened you and never would. That doesn’t mean I don’t want absolutely bad things to happen to you. As undoubtedly you want them to happen to me. Are you going to lie and say you want things to be great for me?
You know what your most fitting punishment would be for being the most supercilious, patronizing, condescending windbag it has ever been my misfortune to encounter?
You looked in a mirror recently?
Is there not one of you lefties with the sense, the character , the integrity to criticize Mambochicken ?! He can’t even admit the he wanted me to kill myself ! He had to back track and say he only wished I was dead!
What are you talking about, Frank? I didn’t backtrack at all. If you killed yourself, you’d be dead. Don’t you understand how that works? I’ve never claimed I didn’t want you to kill yourself. I would also be very happy if you were run over by a bus. Either way works, Frankie.
You will be reminded of this, every time you make any mention of “the violent right” , or “right wing terrorism” .
Frank, my point was that I have never threatened you or anyone else here with violence. You, on the other hand, HAVE DONE SO. So yeah, you still own the “right wing violence” card. Enjoy.
Oh right, an admitted angry leftwing sycophant and borderline psycho gets to define who’s “reasonable”.
Ghost, I could write a book on all the bullshit the RW has spewed from its gaping anus over the last decade. If you believe most of it, you’re not a reasonable person. It’s not difficult to understand.
No, it’s not cowardly at all. Statistics show that not only do most blog commemters wish death upon those who dare to disagree with them, but these are fine, average-day folks with a life, family and friends.
I want to know how its cowardly. Answer me that, idiot. I don’t make the claim that it’s a nice thing to do. And just because I know you’re concerned, yes, I do have a life, family, and friends.
Except Carlin was a legendary comedian, brilliant satirist and a renowned atheist who bashed liberals and conservatives in his acts. You’re just an idiot lemming who threatens people from behind the anonymity of his keyboard.
So what, I can’t quote Carlin because he was a different person than me? What does him being an atheist have to do with anything? What does it matter that he made fun of both liberals and conservatives? By the way, if you know anything about George Carlin, he hated everything that the right-wing stands for. Absolutely everything. He was a clear liberal, even if he did dislike the Democrats for their failures.
“Lemming lemming lemming!!!”
Fucking idiot.
http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/02/is-obama-the-least-liberal-dem-president.html
Take a look at what I’m responding to. A commentator is arguing that it’s inappropriate to bring up the Republican’s ’72 pro-civil rights plank because we know for a fact that Nixon courted the racist vote. To a certain degree, that makes sense. A mere plank doesn’t erase the reality of his southern strategy.
But we also know for a fact that Democrats courted the racist vote. How does a plank change that fact? Truman courted the Dixiecrats back. Stevenson ran with one of them in ’52, and had another segregationist on his ticket in ‘57. The racists are right there on the ticket. The most racists states proceed to vote for that very ticket.
You know it. As you’ve mentioned, we more or less agree. But Prodigal does not. He says I’m lying; “The 1948 party platform’s civil rights plank is one of the things that proves that you’re a liar.”
He appears to be doubting these very facts.
Luckily I quoted him in reference to Dems courting the racist vote during the Jim Crow era. The fact that they never kicked out the Dixiecrats, as evidenced by the fact that virtually all of them returned, is proof that Dems courted the racist vote during the Jim Crow era…which everyone seems to know…except for Prodigal.
Well, those quote from me that you asked me to explain weren’t responses to you, were they?
http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/02/is-obama-the-least-liberal-dem-president.html
And thats based on DW Nominate!…by the the very professor I was corresponding with.
That was the point.
Do you think the GOP is going to buy Obama as the most moderate Post-War Democrat?
Willie…I don’t think the GOP will buy it.
I believe the DW system also reveals that Bush was the most conservative President in a long time. There is something of a cottage industry in RWing circles to claim that Bush was really a RINO. So, as the story goes, Bush’s failed economic policy was actually liberalism. DW busts them.
As DW busts the myth that Dixiecrats were conservatives. As we’ve been discussing, they average out as Moderates, leaning slightly left.
Hilariously, the first black potus does too. I’ve long believed that Jim Corw had very little to do with ideology. So I’m thrilled with the DW data. But if one insists on looking at ideology, the really funny thing is that it tuns out that moderates were to blame. Heh!
“He was a clear liberal…”
That’s a lie as Carlin himself described as a libertarian. But he was also a Republican in his young adulthood and thank goodness he didn’t run into you around that time as you would’ve probably suggested he kill himself.
“I want to know how its cowardly. Answer me that, idiot….”
Already did lemming. Again threatening people from behind the anonymity of a keyboard is not only high schoolish but cowardly.
“Ghost, I could write a book on all the bullshit the RW has spewed from its gaping anus…”
And what that has to do with the fact that you’re so self-righteous and angry all the time that you go on blogs and not only threaten people who dare to disagree with you with violence but wish death upon them is beyond me. Don’t like Republicans then don’t vote for them. Disagree with conservative dogma, state your case why, move on and keep all the TV sets in your house locked on MSNBC. It’s a big world out there mambo and people disagree on how we move forward all the time. It’s hilarious that you can’t see how views like yours contribute to the polarization and utter hate in this country.
Again threatening people from behind the anonymity of a keyboard is not only high schoolish but cowardly.
and not only threaten people who dare to disagree with you with violence
Do you idiots not understand what constitutes a “threat”?
but wish death upon them is beyond me.
I’ve already explained this. But you are clearly incapable of reading basic English.
It’s a big world out there mambo and people disagree on how we move forward all the time.
Conservatives seem to have little interest in moving forward. Also, I have no problem with disagreement. Are you so fucking stupid as to not realize that “disagreement” is not the problem?
It’s hilarious that you can’t see how views like yours contribute to the polarization and utter hate in this country.
What makes you think that I “can’t see” that?
Manju,
Estes Keefauver was a segregationist? & anyway didn’t Stevenson throw the VP nomination to the convention to decide? But a minor matter in any event.
I did read the Ceska article. Makes sense to me.
The mere fact of the existence of the Dixiecrats shows that they were not entirely welcome in the post war Democratic party. But I’ll certainly give you that there was alot of give & take back & forth.
Through all of this though, I’m taking the lesson that it is difficult to pidgeon-hole any of these guys as all-good or all-evil. But Oliver is certainly on solid ground when he points out how far the Republicans have turned to the Right.
Mr. Stark,
The Fox mantra has Predisent Obama being “THE MOST LIBERAL PRESIDENT EVER!!!” I expect facts will not be allowed to intrude.
“A commentator is arguing that it’s inappropriate to bring up the Republican’s ’72 pro-civil rights plank because we know for a fact that Nixon courted the racist vote.”
The only question here is whether Man|u is so stupid – so lacking even the most basic of reading comprehension ability – that he actually believes that, or if he’s making a strawman argument on purpose. Either way, he’s still a fucking idiot.
DB, I know this isn’t you thing, but I just wanted to do the history justice.
This was indeed the first take on the 1957cra. LBJ got the best possible bill thru. You can read William Chafe’s opinion above (“Although he receives credit for shepherding a civil rights bill through Congress in 1957, Johnson in fact eviscerated that law of all substantive content”) but the interesting thing is that folks within the movement itself have long doubted the mainstream liberal narrative here.
Their consensus appears to be that LBJ made the bill weak in order to maintain his support among the segregationists, who he needed on his side if he ran for President. Liberals usually respond with the argument that LBJ didn’t have the votes to overcome a Filibuster, so he had to compromise.
But historian Philip A. Klinkner (no RWinger I should ad) takes apart this argument:
He concludes, rather naughtily:
This history is very much alive, imo.
Looks like it wad the “deliberate strawman” scenario.
I’ve said before, there seems to be something in Frank that revels in personal insults & vindictiveness & he will start it if he feels the want.
And, as I’ve said time and time again, I don’t start the personal attacks. I don’t have a blog devoted to insulting any of you; I haven’t wished you would die, or kill yourselves; I haven’t stalked you all over the Internet so I could insult your spouses or your children.
What I have done is respond / react when it happens to me. I have said on many occasion that if you want to see how I will act when you don’t do it anymore, just stop it and see.
Don’t you think I have seen the situation get worse and worse over the years? To think that I enjoy the comments you all make is facile nonsense. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. Do you think I am going to stop commenting here because some hebephrenic neurotic from LaLa Land is obsessed with me? Or because some bitter, cynical academic hates his own life? Or a hateful contemptible swine like Burn has no moral boundaries ?
No, I am not leaving just because you are the dregs of civilization, the crumbs that fell off the table of grace and good sense …
As the Rabbi said to the puzzled member of the congregation, “Fuck me ? No, fuck you“
Frank,
This isn’t about you. Really.
I don’t have a blog devoted to insulting any of you
Yes, you’ve only insulted some of the commentators here on this blog in the past.
Do you think I am going to stop commenting here because some hebephrenic neurotic from LaLa Land is obsessed with me?
Actually, Dennis lives in Richmond, VA, Frank.
No, I am not leaving just because you are the dregs of civilization, the crumbs that fell off the table of grace and good sense …
That’s right, Frank, act like you’re heroically doing the Internet equivalent of raising the Stars and Strips over Iwo Jima……………..
Manju,
““If ever one needs evidence of the contingency of history, imagine, if you will, those seven votes going the other way. Jim Crow would have died in the late 1950s, avoiding much of the tumult of the 1960s. The Republicans, led by Richard Nixon, would have been the party of civil rights, not the Democrats and Lyndon Johnson…””
The tumult of the 60s would have been brought forward 7 years, the protests, riots, & such that were race related should still have occurred. Just earlier. So we have LA riots in ’58. But at the same time the Berkley Free Speech movement isn’t affected & so won’t come until the 60′s. So no “Woodstock” in ’61 with Elvis & not Country Joe & the Fish.
Does Jack Kennedy win in 1960? Maybe not. What does President Nixon do with the budding Viet Nam War? Or worse (God help us) the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do we even have a 60′s or do we replay “On the Beach”?
What’s your take Manju? But it’s interesting, thanks.