Marion Morrison
Diamond Member
- Feb 10, 2017
- 59,298
- 16,842
Sounds like you're an Antifa sympathizer.
I'll give you a little hint, Pogtard: There is no place for violent Anarcho-Communist rioters in America, sorry.
Anti-Klan Statute Nabs a New Generation of Violent Leftists
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
Sounds like you're an Antifa sympathizer.
I'll give you a little hint, Pogtard: There is no place for violent Anarcho-Communist rioters in America, sorry.
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,749
Here's a hint for Maid Marion: "reading comprehension".
See if you can address the actual post, rather than red herring turds you fling at the wall to see if they stick.
- Apr 17, 2009
- 112,950
- 38,428
Is NK a democratic republic?
MindWars
Diamond Member
- Oct 14, 2016
- 42,227
- 10,772
It's what you Trump haters love.......... the home of COMMIES....... SOrry your plan to make me answer your pathetic question backfired. Try making someone else look like an asshole.
- Apr 17, 2009
- 112,950
- 38,428
This shows what I said.
An isolated example that seems to support what you said.
But the sweep of the SOuth by Jimmy Carter a few years later, reveals that the South's was not turned Republicans by the 64 Civil Rights Act.
Was Goldwater a good candidate for President? In your opinion?
- Sep 16, 2012
- 59,659
- 53,567
Merriam-Webster Updates Definition Of ‘Fascism’ To ‘Anything One Disagrees With’
Merriam-Webster Updates Definition Of 'Fascism' To 'Anything One Disagrees With'
“. . . . This is what people now mean when they use the word, and we have revised the definition accordingly,” he added.
Pressed to respond to the criticism leveled toward Merriam-Webster for changing a word’s definition based on its misuse, Powell replied that he “[doesn’t] care what any dumb fascist says.”
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,920
babylon bee so satire but man, it does seem true. racist, fascist, nazi - anything to demonize those who don't feel like you do.Merriam-Webster Updates Definition Of ‘Fascism’ To ‘Anything One Disagrees With’
Merriam-Webster Updates Definition Of 'Fascism' To 'Anything One Disagrees With'
“. . . . This is what people now mean when they use the word, and we have revised the definition accordingly,” he added.
Pressed to respond to the criticism leveled toward Merriam-Webster for changing a word’s definition based on its misuse, Powell replied that he “[doesn’t] care what any dumb fascist says.”
See that year label -- "1976"?
Have any idea what was going on just prior to that --- say, August of 1974?
Tell ya what, if you want to see the pattern check the next election. And the one after that, and the one after that.
Fun facts: A dozen years prior to your map, George Wallace, a Democrat from right smack dab in the middle of that blue area, offered to switch parties to be Barry Goldwater's running mate. That was the same year Strom Thurmond did switch parties --- which at the time in the white South was unthinkable -- after his hissyfit about the Civil Rights Act didn't pan out. Those were a couple of the biggest final cracks, prior to which both Thurmond and Wallace had bolted the Democrats to run against them in previous years.
Thurmond's previous hissyfit/bolt on the same complaint goes back to 1948, and was itself an echo of a previous Southern walkout all the way back in 1860, when not even Thurmond was born yet. His Dixiecrats actually kicked Truman the Democratic nominee off the ballot in part of the South and replaced his name.
And then when Thurmond's 1948 POTUS bid also didn't pan out, which was the reference that doomed Trent Lott (another Democrat who switched), he ran for Senate and the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot, and he had to run as a write-in, which he won.
Context, m'boy. Everything comes from somewhere. Southern conservatism simmered for well over a century, and occasionally bubbled over into political party schisms, eventual mass party migration, and at one point, civil war. The same conservatism that, when it lost that war, contrived the Klan (and at least two dozen similar vigilante groups) to continue that war socially after it was over militarily. The same conservatism that, to the same end, came up with Jim Crow and separate water fountains and the whole Lost Cause propaganda, the artifacts of which are only now coming under fire, and even now, after all of this, that same campaign continues to be waged with "leave that statue alone, you're erasing history" and mobs with Tiki torches crying "You will not replace us".
See the pattern. Political parties shift with the winds but geographical ideologies don't. Because they're rooted in culture, and those roots go far deeper. The Strom Thurmonds and Trent Lotts and Jesse Helmses can change parties all they like, but changing culture, that's a whole 'nother ball game.
The claim was that the Civil Rights act of 64 drove the racist South to the Republicans.
Jimmy Carter sweeping the South, shows that to be not true.
Jimmy Carter was no racist, and ran as a Dem, who took credit for the Civil Rights Act of 64.
The same South in your post, had no problem voting for a pro-civil rights dem in 1976.
That's my point, and it demolished yours.
I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
But Jimmy Carter, and all, you minimize the effect that civil rights have there, because it does not serve your purpose of smearing the GOP and the South.
The South is good when it votes dem, Racist when it votes republican.
Nothing self serving in that. oh no.
(and I clearly did not say that Carter took credit for the 64 bill. I said the DEMS did. Don't play games.)
So, who desegregated the Southern Schools?
SobieskiSavedEurope
Gold Member
- Apr 13, 2017
- 25,611
- 1,200
Nazis were socially Racist, Nationalist, Social Darwinian's, however economically they were in fact Socialists, they had Cartels prop up the economy, they had Councils micro-manage the economy, and a strong welfare state ahead of it's time.
This is obviously pretty alien to the typical American.
In fact, most Americans are far more socially Liberal, and far more economically Capitalist than the Nazis were, be it Democrats, or Republicans.
Actually, if we look at the U.S.A, the U.S.A was once far more socially Conservative, but more economically Socialist... Look at F.D.Roosevelt New Deal, or Teddy Roosevelt's break-up of Standard Oil these are without a doubt more Conservative, Racist, but also Socialist times.
Reagan supported massive tax cuts, and also amnesty of millions of illegal Mexicans.
The U.S.A on the whole has in fact become more socially Liberal by far, and also quite more economically Socialist.
- Oct 6, 2008
- 125,099
- 60,658
See that year label -- "1976"?
Have any idea what was going on just prior to that --- say, August of 1974?
Tell ya what, if you want to see the pattern check the next election. And the one after that, and the one after that.
Fun facts: A dozen years prior to your map, George Wallace, a Democrat from right smack dab in the middle of that blue area, offered to switch parties to be Barry Goldwater's running mate. That was the same year Strom Thurmond did switch parties --- which at the time in the white South was unthinkable -- after his hissyfit about the Civil Rights Act didn't pan out. Those were a couple of the biggest final cracks, prior to which both Thurmond and Wallace had bolted the Democrats to run against them in previous years.
Thurmond's previous hissyfit/bolt on the same complaint goes back to 1948, and was itself an echo of a previous Southern walkout all the way back in 1860, when not even Thurmond was born yet. His Dixiecrats actually kicked Truman the Democratic nominee off the ballot in part of the South and replaced his name.
And then when Thurmond's 1948 POTUS bid also didn't pan out, which was the reference that doomed Trent Lott (another Democrat who switched), he ran for Senate and the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot, and he had to run as a write-in, which he won.
Context, m'boy. Everything comes from somewhere. Southern conservatism simmered for well over a century, and occasionally bubbled over into political party schisms, eventual mass party migration, and at one point, civil war. The same conservatism that, when it lost that war, contrived the Klan (and at least two dozen similar vigilante groups) to continue that war socially after it was over militarily. The same conservatism that, to the same end, came up with Jim Crow and separate water fountains and the whole Lost Cause propaganda, the artifacts of which are only now coming under fire, and even now, after all of this, that same campaign continues to be waged with "leave that statue alone, you're erasing history" and mobs with Tiki torches crying "You will not replace us".
See the pattern. Political parties shift with the winds but geographical ideologies don't. Because they're rooted in culture, and those roots go far deeper. The Strom Thurmonds and Trent Lotts and Jesse Helmses can change parties all they like, but changing culture, that's a whole 'nother ball game.
The claim was that the Civil Rights act of 64 drove the racist South to the Republicans.
Jimmy Carter sweeping the South, shows that to be not true.
Jimmy Carter was no racist, and ran as a Dem, who took credit for the Civil Rights Act of 64.
The same South in your post, had no problem voting for a pro-civil rights dem in 1976.
That's my point, and it demolished yours.
I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
But Jimmy Carter, and all, you minimize the effect that civil rights have there, because it does not serve your purpose of smearing the GOP and the South.
The South is good when it votes dem, Racist when it votes republican.
Nothing self serving in that. oh no.
(and I clearly did not say that Carter took credit for the 64 bill. I said the DEMS did. Don't play games.)
So, who desegregated the Southern Schools?
And this....
1. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87; Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared
a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Jimmy Carter would like to have a word with you about that.
See that year label -- "1976"?
Have any idea what was going on just prior to that --- say, August of 1974?
Tell ya what, if you want to see the pattern check the next election. And the one after that, and the one after that.
Fun facts: A dozen years prior to your map, George Wallace, a Democrat from right smack dab in the middle of that blue area, offered to switch parties to be Barry Goldwater's running mate. That was the same year Strom Thurmond did switch parties --- which at the time in the white South was unthinkable -- after his hissyfit about the Civil Rights Act didn't pan out. Those were a couple of the biggest final cracks, prior to which both Thurmond and Wallace had bolted the Democrats to run against them in previous years.
Thurmond's previous hissyfit/bolt on the same complaint goes back to 1948, and was itself an echo of a previous Southern walkout all the way back in 1860, when not even Thurmond was born yet. His Dixiecrats actually kicked Truman the Democratic nominee off the ballot in part of the South and replaced his name.
And then when Thurmond's 1948 POTUS bid also didn't pan out, which was the reference that doomed Trent Lott (another Democrat who switched), he ran for Senate and the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot, and he had to run as a write-in, which he won.
Context, m'boy. Everything comes from somewhere. Southern conservatism simmered for well over a century, and occasionally bubbled over into political party schisms, eventual mass party migration, and at one point, civil war. The same conservatism that, when it lost that war, contrived the Klan (and at least two dozen similar vigilante groups) to continue that war socially after it was over militarily. The same conservatism that, to the same end, came up with Jim Crow and separate water fountains and the whole Lost Cause propaganda, the artifacts of which are only now coming under fire, and even now, after all of this, that same campaign continues to be waged with "leave that statue alone, you're erasing history" and mobs with Tiki torches crying "You will not replace us".
See the pattern. Political parties shift with the winds but geographical ideologies don't. Because they're rooted in culture, and those roots go far deeper. The Strom Thurmonds and Trent Lotts and Jesse Helmses can change parties all they like, but changing culture, that's a whole 'nother ball game.
The claim was that the Civil Rights act of 64 drove the racist South to the Republicans.
Jimmy Carter sweeping the South, shows that to be not true.
Jimmy Carter was no racist, and ran as a Dem, who took credit for the Civil Rights Act of 64.
The same South in your post, had no problem voting for a pro-civil rights dem in 1976.
That's my point, and it demolished yours.
I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
But Jimmy Carter, and all, you minimize the effect that civil rights have there, because it does not serve your purpose of smearing the GOP and the South.
The South is good when it votes dem, Racist when it votes republican.
Nothing self serving in that. oh no.
(and I clearly did not say that Carter took credit for the 64 bill. I said the DEMS did. Don't play games.)
So, who desegregated the Southern Schools?
And this....
1. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87; Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared
a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Such historical facts confuse the issue for the dems, who NEED to believe the Myth of the Southern Strategy and the EVULNESS of the GOP.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
The Southern Strategy is a well-established fact.
I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
But Jimmy Carter, and all, you minimize the effect that civil rights have there, because it does not serve your purpose of smearing the GOP and the South.
The South is good when it votes dem, Racist when it votes republican.
Nothing self serving in that. oh no.
(and I clearly did not say that Carter took credit for the 64 bill. I said the DEMS did. Don't play games.)
So, who desegregated the Southern Schools?
And this....
1. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87; Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared
a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Such historical facts confuse the issue for the dems, who NEED to believe the Myth of the Southern Strategy and the EVULNESS of the GOP.
The South changed from Democratic to Republican. Didn't you notice?
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
n American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
<more>
The Southern Strategy is a well-established fact.
I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
But Jimmy Carter, and all, you minimize the effect that civil rights have there, because it does not serve your purpose of smearing the GOP and the South.
The South is good when it votes dem, Racist when it votes republican.
Nothing self serving in that. oh no.
(and I clearly did not say that Carter took credit for the 64 bill. I said the DEMS did. Don't play games.)
So, who desegregated the Southern Schools?
And this....
1. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87; Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared
a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Such historical facts confuse the issue for the dems, who NEED to believe the Myth of the Southern Strategy and the EVULNESS of the GOP.
The South changed from Democratic to Republican. Didn't you notice?
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
n American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
<more>
The Southern Strategy is a well established lie.
What were the supposed "strategies" to appeal to "racism" in the South?
- Oct 6, 2008
- 125,099
- 60,658
The Southern Strategy is a well-established fact.
I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
But Jimmy Carter, and all, you minimize the effect that civil rights have there, because it does not serve your purpose of smearing the GOP and the South.
The South is good when it votes dem, Racist when it votes republican.
Nothing self serving in that. oh no.
(and I clearly did not say that Carter took credit for the 64 bill. I said the DEMS did. Don't play games.)
So, who desegregated the Southern Schools?
And this....
1. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87; Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared
a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Such historical facts confuse the issue for the dems, who NEED to believe the Myth of the Southern Strategy and the EVULNESS of the GOP.
The South changed from Democratic to Republican. Didn't you notice?
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
n American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
<more>
There was no such 'Southern Strategy.'
It's the pap and propaganda that the less astute believe without testing.
Taken notes, you dunce:
- “… the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.” Southern strategy - Wikipedia
- Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
- They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.
- The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.
- The single most important piece of evidence originated with the LBJ statement, after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” Usually, that self-serving quote is cited by liberals with the kind of solemnity reserved for Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death!”
- The sole source of that quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers. This Bill Moyers: “he was intimately involved with some of the uglier aspects of of Johnson's politics having to do with the the monitoring of Martin Luther King's activities under J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, some of the hanky panky that the n that the FBI undertook in the 1964 convention to unseat a delgate delegation from Mississippi, and various things like that. He once ordered the FBI to do political checks [for gays] on Goldwater's staffers, which is the source of Goldwater's contempt for him. And then, you know, he can then whatever 15, 20 years later more than 20 years later, come out with this these pious condemnations of Republicans.” http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/75609-1/Andrew+Ferguson.aspx Could a guy like that make up stuff to make Republicans look bad? Huh?
c. ".... Lyndon Baines Johnson, affectionately know by his Southern political buddies as just LBJ or just Lyndon. Unknown to the public, Southern politicians privately shared Lyndon's hatred of what he called in private, "*******". Lyndon hated "*******'! He called them "*******" in private. He cussed "*******" every day, my father said, and called them all kinds of vile names! He had his hands full with the Viet Nam war and hated being "bothered by those G--damned *******" my father said Lyndon said." http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/08/what-my-father-told-me-about-lbj-and.html
d. From Ronald Kessler, Inside the Whitehouse, pp. 33-34:
During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.”
e. "[LBJ] called me 'boy,' '******,' or 'chief,' never by my name... Whenever I was late, no matter what the reason, Johnson called me 'a lazy good for nothing ******'...I was afraid of him because of the pain and humiliation he could inflict at a moment's notice." -- Robert Parker, LBJ's chauffeur, in his autobiography, "Capital Hill in Black and White".
4. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.
5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. http://www.creators.com/opinion/mic...oised-to-reap-redistricting-rewards-quot.html
a. Between ’48 and ’88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, ‘save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism….certainly not race!
a. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged “segregationist” states into the ‘90’s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carter’s 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?
.".Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
History of the Republican Party
"Coulter goes on to show that LBJ continually rejected civil rights bills proposed by only Republicans and it was not until 1964, when Johnson finally signed the civil rights act with very little help from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Even after the passage of the civil rights act, Democrats continued to win elections in former segregationist states all the way through the election of George H.W. Bush despite the folklore of the GOP “southern strategy.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,749
The Southern Strategy is a well-established fact.I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
But Jimmy Carter, and all, you minimize the effect that civil rights have there, because it does not serve your purpose of smearing the GOP and the South.
The South is good when it votes dem, Racist when it votes republican.
Nothing self serving in that. oh no.
(and I clearly did not say that Carter took credit for the 64 bill. I said the DEMS did. Don't play games.)
So, who desegregated the Southern Schools?
And this....
1. 1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87; Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared
a. Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Such historical facts confuse the issue for the dems, who NEED to believe the Myth of the Southern Strategy and the EVULNESS of the GOP.
The South changed from Democratic to Republican. Didn't you notice?
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
n American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
<more>
There was no such 'Southern Strategy.'
It's the pap and propaganda that the less astute believe without testing.
Taken notes, you dunce:
b. Robert MacMillan, Air Force One steward remembers it this way: “I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.” Kennith T. Walsh, “Air Force One: A History of the Presidents and Their Planes,” p. 81.
- “… the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.” Southern strategy - Wikipedia
- Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
- They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.
- The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.
- The single most important piece of evidence originated with the LBJ statement, after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” Usually, that self-serving quote is cited by liberals with the kind of solemnity reserved for Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death!”
- The sole source of that quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers. This Bill Moyers: “he was intimately involved with some of the uglier aspects of of Johnson's politics having to do with the the monitoring of Martin Luther King's activities under J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, some of the hanky panky that the n that the FBI undertook in the 1964 convention to unseat a delgate delegation from Mississippi, and various things like that. He once ordered the FBI to do political checks [for gays] on Goldwater's staffers, which is the source of Goldwater's contempt for him. And then, you know, he can then whatever 15, 20 years later more than 20 years later, come out with this these pious condemnations of Republicans.” http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/75609-1/Andrew+Ferguson.aspx Could a guy like that make up stuff to make Republicans look bad? Huh?
c. ".... Lyndon Baines Johnson, affectionately know by his Southern political buddies as just LBJ or just Lyndon. Unknown to the public, Southern politicians privately shared Lyndon's hatred of what he called in private, "*******". Lyndon hated "*******'! He called them "*******" in private. He cussed "*******" every day, my father said, and called them all kinds of vile names! He had his hands full with the Viet Nam war and hated being "bothered by those G--damned *******" my father said Lyndon said." http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/08/what-my-father-told-me-about-lbj-and.html
d. From Ronald Kessler, Inside the Whitehouse, pp. 33-34:
During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.”
e. "[LBJ] called me 'boy,' '******,' or 'chief,' never by my name... Whenever I was late, no matter what the reason, Johnson called me 'a lazy good for nothing ******'...I was afraid of him because of the pain and humiliation he could inflict at a moment's notice." -- Robert Parker, LBJ's chauffeur, in his autobiography, "Capital Hill in Black and White".
4. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.
5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. http://www.creators.com/opinion/mic...oised-to-reap-redistricting-rewards-quot.html
a. Between ’48 and ’88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, ‘save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism….certainly not race!
a. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged “segregationist” states into the ‘90’s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carter’s 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?
.".Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
History of the Republican Party
"Coulter goes on to show that LBJ continually rejected civil rights bills proposed by only Republicans and it was not until 1964, when Johnson finally signed the civil rights act with very little help from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Even after the passage of the civil rights act, Democrats continued to win elections in former segregationist states all the way through the election of George H.W. Bush despite the folklore of the GOP “southern strategy.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/
Who but Superintendent Spandex Gurl would post "There was no Southern Strategy" and then immediately, without delay, proceed to explain exactly what the Southern Strategy was. Nor, one notices, does she endeavor to explain, if such a strategy did not exist, why the Chair of the Republican Party publicly acknowledged and apologized for it (the technical term that springs to mind is "oopsie")
Who but Stuporgurl would cite as authentic an LBJ quote taken entirely from a partisan book author, unrecorded and uncorroborated, and then immediately without delay dismiss another LBJ quote from another author and dismiss its authenticity on the basis that it was unrecorded and uncorroborated.
Having it both ways: Priceless.
The latter (Moyers) quote, usually rendered as "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", isn't even controversial. Uttered after his CRA victory but before the 1964 election, his analysis was spot-on though his timeline was underestimated, assuming "for a generation" is the accurate rendering. Of course her source being Ann Coulter, the mouth so busy frothing it has no time to eat, nothing resembling historical accuracy is either demonstrated nor expected.
Furthermore, we already did this yesterday, in detail. FURTHERfurthermore, that very analysis is still nested directly above, which Spandexgurl didn't bother to read, or simply could not see for the froth in her own mouth.
--- which also (pre)addressed this:
>> 5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. <<
mmmmmmm no. Not even close; see the above references to Thurmond, Lott and Helms. Put the qualifier "ex" in front of "Democrats", and we have a far more accurate assesment.
As for the other "ni**er" quotes, some of which actually are corroborated, we've done this many times before as well. It's called "mirroring" in linguistic psychology, meaning the speaker is establishing a rapport with his listener, in order to make the latter receptive. In other words it's about the person being spoken TO -- not the person being spoken ABOUT.
Happily there are plenty of LBJ quotes to put the lie to the cherrypicked bullshit, to wit:
>> Johnson and his chief political strategists on the civil rights bill --- Larry O'Brien and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach --- began huddling within days of the assassination. Key to passage, they recognized, would be the civil rights organizations, labor, business, the churches, and the Republican party.
.... On his way to the office on the morning of December 4 [1963]--- the Johnsons were still living at The Elms --- LBJ had his driver swing by and pick up George Meany, who lived nearby. During the ride, Meany promised he would do everything possible to secure support for the civil rights bill from leaders of the AFL-CIO, no small task because the measure covered apprenticeship programs. A day later, LBJ gathered up House Republican Minority Leader Charles Halleck for the trip downtown. Halleck was noncommittal; Johnson made it plain that he was going to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on civil rights: "I'm going to lay it on the line ... now you're either for civil rights or you're not ... you're either the party of Lincoln or you're not --- By God, put up or shut up."15 ---- LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, pp. 470-471
.... On his way to the office on the morning of December 4 [1963]--- the Johnsons were still living at The Elms --- LBJ had his driver swing by and pick up George Meany, who lived nearby. During the ride, Meany promised he would do everything possible to secure support for the civil rights bill from leaders of the AFL-CIO, no small task because the measure covered apprenticeship programs. A day later, LBJ gathered up House Republican Minority Leader Charles Halleck for the trip downtown. Halleck was noncommittal; Johnson made it plain that he was going to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on civil rights: "I'm going to lay it on the line ... now you're either for civil rights or you're not ... you're either the party of Lincoln or you're not --- By God, put up or shut up."15 ---- LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, pp. 470-471
What's that? Oh yes, there's more. Plenty more. Mythologize at your own risk.
Last edited:
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,749
See that year label -- "1976"?
Have any idea what was going on just prior to that --- say, August of 1974?
Tell ya what, if you want to see the pattern check the next election. And the one after that, and the one after that.
Fun facts: A dozen years prior to your map, George Wallace, a Democrat from right smack dab in the middle of that blue area, offered to switch parties to be Barry Goldwater's running mate. That was the same year Strom Thurmond did switch parties --- which at the time in the white South was unthinkable -- after his hissyfit about the Civil Rights Act didn't pan out. Those were a couple of the biggest final cracks, prior to which both Thurmond and Wallace had bolted the Democrats to run against them in previous years.
Thurmond's previous hissyfit/bolt on the same complaint goes back to 1948, and was itself an echo of a previous Southern walkout all the way back in 1860, when not even Thurmond was born yet. His Dixiecrats actually kicked Truman the Democratic nominee off the ballot in part of the South and replaced his name.
And then when Thurmond's 1948 POTUS bid also didn't pan out, which was the reference that doomed Trent Lott (another Democrat who switched), he ran for Senate and the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot, and he had to run as a write-in, which he won.
Context, m'boy. Everything comes from somewhere. Southern conservatism simmered for well over a century, and occasionally bubbled over into political party schisms, eventual mass party migration, and at one point, civil war. The same conservatism that, when it lost that war, contrived the Klan (and at least two dozen similar vigilante groups) to continue that war socially after it was over militarily. The same conservatism that, to the same end, came up with Jim Crow and separate water fountains and the whole Lost Cause propaganda, the artifacts of which are only now coming under fire, and even now, after all of this, that same campaign continues to be waged with "leave that statue alone, you're erasing history" and mobs with Tiki torches crying "You will not replace us".
See the pattern. Political parties shift with the winds but geographical ideologies don't. Because they're rooted in culture, and those roots go far deeper. The Strom Thurmonds and Trent Lotts and Jesse Helmses can change parties all they like, but changing culture, that's a whole 'nother ball game.
The claim was that the Civil Rights act of 64 drove the racist South to the Republicans.
Jimmy Carter sweeping the South, shows that to be not true.
Jimmy Carter was no racist, and ran as a Dem, who took credit for the Civil Rights Act of 64.
The same South in your post, had no problem voting for a pro-civil rights dem in 1976.
That's my point, and it demolished yours.
I'm afraid you just demolished your own. Jimmy Carter wasn't even in the federal government in 1964 let alone Congress, for starters so he certainly wouldn't have 'taken credit'. But the CRA '64 *was* the impetus for Strom Thurmond to bolt to the Republican Party, as already laid out.
Strom Thurmond was not "the South" of course, but he broke the ice that had made such a move unthinkable to the white "solid (Democrat) South" for 99 years, going where proverbially no white Democrat had gone before, after which the rest of "the South" followed. Thurmond had already been opposing the CRA when Kennedy brought it up in 1963 as well as railing against civil rights march organizers, opposing JFK's federal nominees and tangling with fellow Democrats such as Pastore (RI), and of course whining about the media being on the side of equality (and if that whining about the media sounds familiar --- it should).
The POTUS vote of 1964 (pictured in the PJ post above) was a perfect illustration of "the South" following Thurmond's lead. The same shift could be seen even more dramatically in the next election:
Half "the South" voted for George Wallace running against the two parties with a far-right California fringe party while the rest voted Republican. The only peripheral "Southern" Democratic state being Texas owing to LBJ's campaigning and being the sitting President and 'favorite son'. In other words half the South went to the party representing "the Right" while the other half went to an offshoot party representing "the extreme Right". This is exactly what LBJ was talking about when he mused, after the CRA passed but before his own 1964 election, that the Democratic Party had "lost the South for a generation". He was correct but clearly underestimated the time frame.
The next election it went entirely red.
You are correct that Jimmy Carter was and is no racist, but he was and is a Georgian. That brings us back to culture and the electoral benefit of having one in common. Carter had both the pull of that culture in the positive combined with his lackluster opponent having the burden of the national disgust for Watergate and Presidential interruption in his opponent's negative. Clinton had a similar benefit, minus the Watergate part, and even then failed to carry Alabama, Mississippi, both Carolinas and Virginia as well as Florida and Texas which still went Republican. But by then it was 1992 and politicians of "the South" were already running and winning office as Repubicans -- such as the aforementioned Trent Lott (who switched well before running for office) and Jesse Helms (who had been in politics longer and, like Thurmond, switched parties well after his political career was well established).
Thurmond, Lott, Helms et al never switched their ideologies. They merely switched political parties when they determined it would be expedient to their elections to do so. It's the same transition as, say, Richard Petty switching from Plymouth to Chevrolet when the former no longer provided what he needed to win races. The objective is always the same; only the vehicle to get there changes.
Hell, the sheriff in my town ran in his last election (and won) as a Republican. In the previous elections he ran (and won) as a Democrat. Same guy, same job. It's simply a matter of "which label will get me elected". Even the klown in my sigline identified for most of his life as a "Democrat", yet got his office as a "Republican". And oh yeah he carried "the South" too.
When you talk about Thurmond, and all, you are happy to define them and any drift towards the right, as solely driven by civil rights.
Perhaps I didn't make it substantially clear --- the South didn't need to "drift toward the right" --- it was always there. Thurmond, your example, as well as others I cited, were conservatives all their lives. Jesse Helms had a TV station where he delivered far-right editorials, back to the 1960s. When Lott noted his state's voting for Thurmond (proudly), that was one conservative lauding another.
All of those guys were Democrats at the time, but that's irrelevant to their being conservative.
But we covered this yesterday. To sum it up, for 99 years in the (white) South, if you wanted to run for office, you either ran as a Democrat, or you lost. And this isn't hidden history. I get the figure "99 years" by dating the end of the Civil War (1865) to the date Strom Thurmond did the unthinkable and turned Republican (1964). You can quibble over dates when the various Confederate states were readmitted to the United States if you want and tweak it but "99" is poetic.
Bottom line, and I KNOW I noted this in yesterday's treatise, is that political party memberships, and ideologies, change freely with time. Cultural ideology however evolves at glacial speed. So when we describe the South as "conservative", that isn't limited to racism. Even Stuporgurl above tried to make that case, citing "antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage", none of which are related to racism, but all of which are anathema to conservatism.
Y'all can't have it both ways --- y'all want to talk conservatism in general, or racism specifically? Pick one.
I have no idea what this word salad intends to mean.
Beg to differ. The South was rampant with racists, particularly during times when the Civil War was in recent memory, and as already noted, solidly Democratic, hence the label "solid South" (from the POV of the Democrats, meaning they could and did take its vote for granted. As noted above, you either ran as a Democrat, or you lost. So whether you were a racist (Thurmond, Helms, Wallace) or not a racist (Ellis Arnall, Huey Long, Stetson Kennedy), there was only one election for you --- the Democratic primary.
Why that is --- the one-party state --- has far more to do with the Civil War than with any real or perceived ideology that did or did not exist in any political party at any time. In that era the term "Democrat" by itself didn't tell anything about the person to whom it was applied. It couldn't.
Perhaps you need an eye exam. Roll tape.
Basically the federal government.
Last edited:
- Oct 6, 2008
- 125,099
- 60,658
The Southern Strategy is a well-established fact.
The South changed from Democratic to Republican. Didn't you notice?
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
n American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
<more>
There was no such 'Southern Strategy.'
It's the pap and propaganda that the less astute believe without testing.
Taken notes, you dunce:
b. Robert MacMillan, Air Force One steward remembers it this way: “I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.” Kennith T. Walsh, “Air Force One: A History of the Presidents and Their Planes,” p. 81.
- “… the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.” Southern strategy - Wikipedia
- Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
- They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.
- The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.
- The single most important piece of evidence originated with the LBJ statement, after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” Usually, that self-serving quote is cited by liberals with the kind of solemnity reserved for Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death!”
- The sole source of that quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers. This Bill Moyers: “he was intimately involved with some of the uglier aspects of of Johnson's politics having to do with the the monitoring of Martin Luther King's activities under J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, some of the hanky panky that the n that the FBI undertook in the 1964 convention to unseat a delgate delegation from Mississippi, and various things like that. He once ordered the FBI to do political checks [for gays] on Goldwater's staffers, which is the source of Goldwater's contempt for him. And then, you know, he can then whatever 15, 20 years later more than 20 years later, come out with this these pious condemnations of Republicans.” http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/75609-1/Andrew+Ferguson.aspx Could a guy like that make up stuff to make Republicans look bad? Huh?
c. ".... Lyndon Baines Johnson, affectionately know by his Southern political buddies as just LBJ or just Lyndon. Unknown to the public, Southern politicians privately shared Lyndon's hatred of what he called in private, "*******". Lyndon hated "*******'! He called them "*******" in private. He cussed "*******" every day, my father said, and called them all kinds of vile names! He had his hands full with the Viet Nam war and hated being "bothered by those G--damned *******" my father said Lyndon said." http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/08/what-my-father-told-me-about-lbj-and.html
d. From Ronald Kessler, Inside the Whitehouse, pp. 33-34:
During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.”
e. "[LBJ] called me 'boy,' '******,' or 'chief,' never by my name... Whenever I was late, no matter what the reason, Johnson called me 'a lazy good for nothing ******'...I was afraid of him because of the pain and humiliation he could inflict at a moment's notice." -- Robert Parker, LBJ's chauffeur, in his autobiography, "Capital Hill in Black and White".
4. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.
5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. http://www.creators.com/opinion/mic...oised-to-reap-redistricting-rewards-quot.html
a. Between ’48 and ’88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, ‘save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism….certainly not race!
a. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged “segregationist” states into the ‘90’s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carter’s 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?
.".Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
History of the Republican Party
"Coulter goes on to show that LBJ continually rejected civil rights bills proposed by only Republicans and it was not until 1964, when Johnson finally signed the civil rights act with very little help from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Even after the passage of the civil rights act, Democrats continued to win elections in former segregationist states all the way through the election of George H.W. Bush despite the folklore of the GOP “southern strategy.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/
Who but Superintendent Spandex Gurl would post "There was no Southern Strategy" and then immediately, without delay, proceed to explain exactly what the Southern Strategy was. Nor, one notices, does she endeavor to explain, if such a strategy did not exist, why the Chair of the Republican Party publicly acknowledged and apologized for it (the technical term that springs to mind is "oopsie")
Who but Stuporgurl would cite as authentic an LBJ quote taken entirely from a partisan book author, unrecorded and uncorroborated, and then immediately without delay dismiss another LBJ quote from another author and dismiss its authenticity on the basis that it was unrecorded and uncorroborated.
Having it both ways: Priceless.
The latter (Moyers) quote, usually rendered as "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", isn't even controversial. Uttered after his CRA victory but before the 1964 election, his analysis was spot-on though his timeline was underestimated, assuming "for a generation" is the accurate rendering. Of course her source being Ann Coulter, the mouth so busy frothing it has no time to eat, nothing resembling historical accuracy is either demonstratedd nor expected.
Furthermore, we already did this yesterday, in detail. FURTHERfurthermore, that very analysis is still nested directly above, which Spandexgurl didn't bother to read, or simply could not see for the froth in her own mouth.
--- which also (pre)addressed this:
>> 5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. <<
mmmmmmm no. Not even close; see the above references to Thurmond, Lott and Helms. Put the qualifier "ex" in front of "Democrats", and we have a far more accurate assesment.
As for the other "ni**er" quotes, some of which actually are corroborated, we've done this many times before as well. It's called "mirroring" in linguistic psychology, meaning the speaker is establishing a rapport with his listener, in order to make the latter receptive. In other words it's about the person being spoken TO -- not the person being spoken ABOUT.
Happily there are plenty of LBJ quotes to put the lie to the cherrypicked bullshit, to wit:
>> Johnson and his chief political strategists on the civil rights bill --- Larry O'Brien and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach --- began huddling within days of the assassination. Key to passage, they recognized, would be the civil rights organizations, labor, business, the churches, and the Republican party.
.... On his way to the office on the morning of December 4 [1963]--- the Johnsons were still living at The Elms --- LBJ had his driver swing by and pick up George Meany, who lived nearby. During the ride, Meany promised he would do everything possible to secure support for the civil rights bill from leaders of the AFL-CIO, no small task because the measure covered apprenticeship programs. A day later, LBJ gathered up House Republican Minority Leader Charles Halleck for the trip downtown. Halleck was noncommittal; Johnson made it plain that he was going to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on civil rights: "I'm going to lay it on the line ... now you're either for civil rights or you're not ... you're either the party of Lincoln or you're not --- By God, put up or shut up."15 ---- LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, pp. 470-471
What's that? Oh yes, there's more. Plenty more. Mythologize at your own risk.
Let's review, just for context.
Now....your Democrat Party???????
The party that proves Lord Acton’s adage: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne
2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.
3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.
4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress
5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran….to the tune of $100 billion to the Ayatollahs….and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.
6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.
7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.
8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu.
9. The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.
10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, ……and this is their model for the nation.
The Democrats.....the party that blocked every anti-lynching bill that got to the Senate.
- Oct 6, 2008
- 125,099
- 60,658
The Southern Strategy is a well-established fact.
The South changed from Democratic to Republican. Didn't you notice?
Southern strategy - Wikipedia
n American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
<more>
There was no such 'Southern Strategy.'
It's the pap and propaganda that the less astute believe without testing.
Taken notes, you dunce:
b. Robert MacMillan, Air Force One steward remembers it this way: “I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.” Kennith T. Walsh, “Air Force One: A History of the Presidents and Their Planes,” p. 81.
- “… the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.” Southern strategy - Wikipedia
- Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
- They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.
- The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.
- The single most important piece of evidence originated with the LBJ statement, after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” Usually, that self-serving quote is cited by liberals with the kind of solemnity reserved for Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death!”
- The sole source of that quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers. This Bill Moyers: “he was intimately involved with some of the uglier aspects of of Johnson's politics having to do with the the monitoring of Martin Luther King's activities under J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, some of the hanky panky that the n that the FBI undertook in the 1964 convention to unseat a delgate delegation from Mississippi, and various things like that. He once ordered the FBI to do political checks [for gays] on Goldwater's staffers, which is the source of Goldwater's contempt for him. And then, you know, he can then whatever 15, 20 years later more than 20 years later, come out with this these pious condemnations of Republicans.” http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/75609-1/Andrew+Ferguson.aspx Could a guy like that make up stuff to make Republicans look bad? Huh?
c. ".... Lyndon Baines Johnson, affectionately know by his Southern political buddies as just LBJ or just Lyndon. Unknown to the public, Southern politicians privately shared Lyndon's hatred of what he called in private, "*******". Lyndon hated "*******'! He called them "*******" in private. He cussed "*******" every day, my father said, and called them all kinds of vile names! He had his hands full with the Viet Nam war and hated being "bothered by those G--damned *******" my father said Lyndon said." http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/08/what-my-father-told-me-about-lbj-and.html
d. From Ronald Kessler, Inside the Whitehouse, pp. 33-34:
During one trip, Johnson was discussing his proposed civil rights bill with two governors. Explaining why it was so important to him, he said it was simple: “I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.”
e. "[LBJ] called me 'boy,' '******,' or 'chief,' never by my name... Whenever I was late, no matter what the reason, Johnson called me 'a lazy good for nothing ******'...I was afraid of him because of the pain and humiliation he could inflict at a moment's notice." -- Robert Parker, LBJ's chauffeur, in his autobiography, "Capital Hill in Black and White".
4. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.
5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. http://www.creators.com/opinion/mic...oised-to-reap-redistricting-rewards-quot.html
a. Between ’48 and ’88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, ‘save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism….certainly not race!
a. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged “segregationist” states into the ‘90’s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carter’s 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?
.".Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act, and saw it through to passage. Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act overwhelmingly, and by much higher percentages in both House and Senate than the Democrats. Indeed, the 1964 Civil Rights Act became law only after overcoming a Democrat filibuster."
History of the Republican Party
"Coulter goes on to show that LBJ continually rejected civil rights bills proposed by only Republicans and it was not until 1964, when Johnson finally signed the civil rights act with very little help from his fellow Democrats in Congress. Even after the passage of the civil rights act, Democrats continued to win elections in former segregationist states all the way through the election of George H.W. Bush despite the folklore of the GOP “southern strategy.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-coulter-shreds-southern-strategy-myth-gop-s/
Who but Superintendent Spandex Gurl would post "There was no Southern Strategy" and then immediately, without delay, proceed to explain exactly what the Southern Strategy was. Nor, one notices, does she endeavor to explain, if such a strategy did not exist, why the Chair of the Republican Party publicly acknowledged and apologized for it (the technical term that springs to mind is "oopsie")
Who but Stuporgurl would cite as authentic an LBJ quote taken entirely from a partisan book author, unrecorded and uncorroborated, and then immediately without delay dismiss another LBJ quote from another author and dismiss its authenticity on the basis that it was unrecorded and uncorroborated.
Having it both ways: Priceless.
The latter (Moyers) quote, usually rendered as "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", isn't even controversial. Uttered after his CRA victory but before the 1964 election, his analysis was spot-on though his timeline was underestimated, assuming "for a generation" is the accurate rendering. Of course her source being Ann Coulter, the mouth so busy frothing it has no time to eat, nothing resembling historical accuracy is either demonstratedd nor expected.
Furthermore, we already did this yesterday, in detail. FURTHERfurthermore, that very analysis is still nested directly above, which Spandexgurl didn't bother to read, or simply could not see for the froth in her own mouth.
--- which also (pre)addressed this:
>> 5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. <<
mmmmmmm no. Not even close; see the above references to Thurmond, Lott and Helms. Put the qualifier "ex" in front of "Democrats", and we have a far more accurate assesment.
As for the other "ni**er" quotes, some of which actually are corroborated, we've done this many times before as well. It's called "mirroring" in linguistic psychology, meaning the speaker is establishing a rapport with his listener, in order to make the latter receptive. In other words it's about the person being spoken TO -- not the person being spoken ABOUT.
Happily there are plenty of LBJ quotes to put the lie to the cherrypicked bullshit, to wit:
>> Johnson and his chief political strategists on the civil rights bill --- Larry O'Brien and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach --- began huddling within days of the assassination. Key to passage, they recognized, would be the civil rights organizations, labor, business, the churches, and the Republican party.
.... On his way to the office on the morning of December 4 [1963]--- the Johnsons were still living at The Elms --- LBJ had his driver swing by and pick up George Meany, who lived nearby. During the ride, Meany promised he would do everything possible to secure support for the civil rights bill from leaders of the AFL-CIO, no small task because the measure covered apprenticeship programs. A day later, LBJ gathered up House Republican Minority Leader Charles Halleck for the trip downtown. Halleck was noncommittal; Johnson made it plain that he was going to hold the GOP's feet to the fire on civil rights: "I'm going to lay it on the line ... now you're either for civil rights or you're not ... you're either the party of Lincoln or you're not --- By God, put up or shut up."15 ---- LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, pp. 470-471
What's that? Oh yes, there's more. Plenty more. Mythologize at your own risk.
">> 5. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994. <<
mmmmmmm no. Not even close; see the above references to Thurmond, Lott and Helms. Put the qualifier "ex" in front of "Democrats", and we have a far more accurate assesment (sic)."
A lie, easily proven so.
The segregationist called themselves Dixiecrats......not Dixicans.
- In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” not “Dixiecan.” They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.
- The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#The__Dixiecrats__Remained_Democrats
- While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.
- Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc.
- Bill Clinton, the face of the Democrat Party for decades, until the Left admitted that he was a rapist.....was a racist his entire life.
Last edited:
Similar threads
