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: āIāll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.ā Kennith T. Walsh, āAir Force One: A History of the Presidents and Their Planes,ā p. 81.
- āā¦ 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.ā Southern strategy - Wikipedia
- Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- itās been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats canāt get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.
- They tell themselves itās because they wonāt stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners donāt 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, āwe just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.ā Usually, that self-serving quote is cited by liberals with the kind of solemnity reserved for Patrick Henryās āGive me liberty or give me death!ā
- The sole source of that quote is LBJ assistant Bill Moyers. This Bill Moyers: āhe 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.ā 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: āIāll have them ******* voting Democratic for two hundred years.ā
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 didnāt 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 yearsā¦right up to 1994. http://www.creators.com/opinion/mic...oised-to-reap-redistricting-rewards-quot.html
a. Between ā48 and ā88, 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, āsave the whales/kill the humans environmentalismā¦.certainly not race!
a. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged āsegregationistā states into the ā90ās. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carterās 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 āsouthern strategy.ā 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 yearsā¦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 Actonās adage: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Once AGAIN --- if I were a joiner who needed a hive and hence needed to affiliate with a political party, the laws of existence demand that I would have to pick one that actually exists.
As for Lord Acton, correct as he may be, if we speak here of political parties, we are not speaking of "power". For a political party isn't "power"; it's an instrument to consolidate power, as a bloc. Nor, of course, does a political party involve a fixed ideology. That's why I've often opined on these very pages tat political parties should be chartered, like a corporation, for a finite and non-renewable term of 20 years. Once that's up, you're history. Whether you've accomplished any goals you had in mind, or not. Out you go. Term limits writ large so to speak.
So while the "Democrat Party" may not exist, the Democratic Party is in fact the oldest political party in the world. And that cannot be read as a compliment.
But this is easy meat. Surely you have far more depraved absurdities yet to come in your notoriously hyperloquacious diatribes. Whatcha got?
Ding ding ding. I knew you wouldn't let me down. Over to Captain Obvious....
Slavery has existed for literally thousands of years on literally every continent excepting Antarctica. As a socio-economic institution rather than a political one, it has no need of a political party. Nor was it ever necessary to enroll in such a party to own slaves, which have been owned in this country alone by Democrats, Republicans, Federalists, Whigs, Demoratic-Republicans, Constitutional Unionists, Know Nothings, and most significantly, those with no political party at all, because none was necessary.
Segregation and second-class citizenship ("Jim Crow" if you like) are subsets and/or characteristics of slavery, and as such also cultural institutions. Were this not the case, were the association fallacy with political parties actually valid, we should have seen slavery, separate waiting rooms and water fountains etc, OUTSIDE the culture associated with it, in Maine and in Indiana and in Colorado -- all of which had and still have "Democrats".
But ----------- we don't.
Know what we do see though, related to the topic here?
Ku Klux Klan marching and political agitation to elect Governors, Senators and state/local officials in Maine and Indiana and Colorado --- as Republicans.
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
Next in line please?
Jefferson Davis was a member when he was an American. He was not when he was a Confederate. Because the Confederacy had no political parties. They deliberately abolished them. Nor were the Klan, PP, concentration camps or speech restrictions, products of political parties. Nor was the NAACP if you care to throw that in, you know, just to be consistent with your Ass-soition Fallacies.
Wait --- "consistent"? What am I saying. Disregard that last.
Clearly infringements on freedom of speech/movement/habeus corpus etc have occurred --- Wilson comes to mind but so does Lincoln --- but clearly these too are not generated by political parties. When Doornail Rump threatens the press, he doesn't do so because he's a Republican and he doesn't do it because before it was convenient to be a Republican he was a Democrat ------ he does so because he's an asshole fragile snowflake queen who can't handle criticism.
But of course this fails to feed into the infantilistic faƧile dichotomy that clings desperately to its juvenile insistence that all people everywhere are ether "Democrats" or "Republicans" because some Tuesday at 3am while no one was looking it became federally mandatory to join a fucking political party. Either that, or "complex thought is hard, waaaah"
Link to "Mao ornaments" is where? And once you have that by all means show the class how they were put there by a political party. Oughta be hilarious. Oh and same with "pretend genders", whatever that is.
Bernie Sanders has never been a Democrat. Actually in Vermont everybody registers without a political party. In fact he defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first political election (as a mayor). Matter of fact not only has he repeatedly run against and defeated both Democrats and Republicans since then but there was at least one year when the Democrats and Republicans ran a joint candidate against him. And he still won. This is not unrelated to why he's the most popular Senator in the Senate.
Did this above, yet here it is with a "4" in it. I take it this is Giancarlo Stanton's K-rate today
I especially liked the part about "anti-Semitism", considering the Klan burned a cross on LBJ's property in the 1950s, because they saw him as "Jew-friendly". I did notice you bailed out on the LBJ bit. I warned you there was more.
Actually the South kicked the Democrats out of their territory when it tried to hold its convention there in 1860, bolted from the party altogether and ran its own candidate. Come the election the Democrat finished fourth. In a field where no candidate except the Southern one was sympathetic to secession. In fact once Lincoln emerged as the victor and rumblings of secession bubble-bubbled with toil and trouble, the defeated Douglas went on a campaign on Lincoln's behalf to try to convince the Southerners not to secede. And when that failed he advised Lincoln on how to fight them.
Again, Jefferson Davis left the Democrats when he left the United States, and again we already did this.
Clearly you're in dire need of a history book to compensate for all those years of not doing your homework and figuring you could wing it until you embarrassed yourself on a message board and got spanked with a metaphorical cat o' nine tails.
