Today’s GOP - Censure Those Who Convicted Trump But Not Klan Leaders

Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.
 
1. Or, they could just be more accepting with time, without a weird Maoist public shaming.

2. You libs have been whining about the supposed "Rise" in ws for quite some time. But you never talk about how many there are. YOu certainly love to call people ws. How many ws are in this country?

1. It's not shameful to be a former racist.

2. It has been reported on. There has been a significant rise in the number of white supremacist/nationalist groups in the United States.


What is the benefit to you in denying the existence of these (Almost 200 known groups compromised of untold numbers) extremist groups?



1. And again, you demonstrate that actual change is not your goal, humiliating your enemies is.

2. So, no numbers at all, about any real rise in the number of ws. Not even empty unsupported claims. We have no reason to believe there is any rise in the fringe movement.

1. It's quite telling that you believe being a former racist is humiliating.
2. Except all the Law Enforcement agencies saying there is a rise.

We've already discussed (you dismissed) the FBI, but what about the State Department?

Homeland Security?

Are they all in on this conspiracy theory that you can't explain the reason for? What reason would they have to make it up?

Again, what is the benefit to you to deny the rise of these extremists groups?



1. YOur desire that those that change should have to go though a maoist public shaming, has been discussed.

2. And yet, no numbers on how many ws there are in this country. It is a simply question. You want me to believe that ws are a growing problem, tell me how many more there are this year, than there was last year, in numbers of ws.


And you can't.
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.



Let's try to keep focus.


From your link, with it's "mounds of evidence", what did they DO, to oppose civil rights?
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.



Let's try to keep focus.


From your link, with it's "mounds of evidence", what did they DO, to oppose civil rights?


Hello...Barry Goldwater ring any bells? Do you even understand what the Southern Strategy was?

It was about courting racist, white, southern voters.

 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.



Let's try to keep focus.


From your link, with it's "mounds of evidence", what did they DO, to oppose civil rights?


Hello...Barry Goldwater ring any bells? Do you even understand what the Southern Strategy was?

It was about courting racist, white, southern voters.






Barry Goldwater voted against ONE civil rights bill because he did not like the way it addressed the problem.


That is not him being anti-Civil Rights, and it was not him pandering to wacists.


Or is it your position that any bill with "civil rights" in the name has to be good and must be supported?



To support the idea of the Southern Strategy as this evil pandering to wacists, you need something more than that.

It is also with noting that Goldwater was ONE OF FIVE republican senators that voted against the bill. It passed easily.
 
That's where the GOP is right now.

I guess it has to hit rock bottom before it can turn around.

Le6kTZc.gif
external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg
 
That's where the GOP is right now.

I guess it has to hit rock bottom before it can turn around.

Le6kTZc.gif
View attachment 459968
When was he President?

When did he have a stranglehold on his party?

Fail. Weak fail. But I'm glad you felt you had to try.


Your party embrace him for decades, and you pretend it means nothing.


Trump blew off ONE question about David Duke, and you pretend it means everything.
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.



Let's try to keep focus.


From your link, with it's "mounds of evidence", what did they DO, to oppose civil rights?


Hello...Barry Goldwater ring any bells? Do you even understand what the Southern Strategy was?

It was about courting racist, white, southern voters.






Barry Goldwater voted against ONE civil rights bill because he did not like the way it addressed the problem.


That is not him being anti-Civil Rights, and it was not him pandering to wacists.


Or is it your position that any bill with "civil rights" in the name has to be good and must be supported?



To support the idea of the Southern Strategy as this evil pandering to wacists, you need something more than that.

It is also with noting that Goldwater was ONE OF FIVE republican senators that voted against the bill. It passed easily.


You have been provided plenty of actual, real evidence that the Southern Strategy was a real thing. Here is Nixon's strategist Kevin Phillips in 1973:

"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed."

Another gem from Phillips:

The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and be come Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrange ment with the local Democrats.”

It was a real thing the GOP did, courting white, southern racists. You won't find a historian that denies it, only crackpots like Owens and D'Souza.
 
Last edited:
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.



Let's try to keep focus.


From your link, with it's "mounds of evidence", what did they DO, to oppose civil rights?


Hello...Barry Goldwater ring any bells? Do you even understand what the Southern Strategy was?

It was about courting racist, white, southern voters.






Barry Goldwater voted against ONE civil rights bill because he did not like the way it addressed the problem.


That is not him being anti-Civil Rights, and it was not him pandering to wacists.


Or is it your position that any bill with "civil rights" in the name has to be good and must be supported?



To support the idea of the Southern Strategy as this evil pandering to wacists, you need something more than that.

It is also with noting that Goldwater was ONE OF FIVE republican senators that voted against the bill. It passed easily.


You have been provided plenty of actual, real evidence that the Southern Strategy was a real thing. Here is Nixon's strategist Kevin Phillips in 1973:

"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed."

Another gem from Phillips:

The more Negroes who register as Dem ocrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and be come Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrange ment with the local Demo crats.”

It was a real thing the GOP did, courting white, southern racists. You won't find a historian that denies it, only crackpots like Owens and D'Souza.



Yes. you said that. YOu have found republicans who agree with you. We discussed that.


Teh point we are at now, is where you decided to show,


HOW exactly they supposedly "courted" those terrible wacists.


So far you have Barry Goldwater voting against ONE bill, that passed into law.



This is where, you have a choice. You can double down on your position, even though you can't support it,


or you can admit that you were wrong and gain tremendous credibly moving forward.
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.



Let's try to keep focus.


From your link, with it's "mounds of evidence", what did they DO, to oppose civil rights?


Hello...Barry Goldwater ring any bells? Do you even understand what the Southern Strategy was?

It was about courting racist, white, southern voters.






Barry Goldwater voted against ONE civil rights bill because he did not like the way it addressed the problem.


That is not him being anti-Civil Rights, and it was not him pandering to wacists.


Or is it your position that any bill with "civil rights" in the name has to be good and must be supported?



To support the idea of the Southern Strategy as this evil pandering to wacists, you need something more than that.

It is also with noting that Goldwater was ONE OF FIVE republican senators that voted against the bill. It passed easily.


You have been provided plenty of actual, real evidence that the Southern Strategy was a real thing. Here is Nixon's strategist Kevin Phillips in 1973:

"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed."

Another gem from Phillips:

The more Negroes who register as Dem ocrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and be come Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrange ment with the local Demo crats.”

It was a real thing the GOP did, courting white, southern racists. You won't find a historian that denies it, only crackpots like Owens and D'Souza.



Yes. you said that. YOu have found republicans who agree with you. We discussed that.


Teh point we are at now, is where you decided to show,


HOW exactly they supposedly "courted" those terrible wacists.


So far you have Barry Goldwater voting against ONE bill, that passed into law.



This is where, you have a choice. You can double down on your position, even though you can't support it,


or you can admit that you were wrong and gain tremendous credibly moving forward.


By talking about "states rights", bussing, welfare queens in cadillacs. Why do YOU think southern, white Democrats switched parties?

Sorry chum, but I've got historians by the hundreds that all agree and document the fact that the Southern Strategy was real while you have two crackpots. I'm not the one with a credibility issue. You have provided zero evidence to support any of your claims and refute mountains of proof with "nuh uh".
 
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.





Well, good for you. You actually went looking to see what you could find, to see what Nixon gave to the supposed "southern wacists" in order to buy their support as per the Southern Strategy.


Less discussion of Civil Rights, really doesn't fit the bill.


This was 1968. ALL the voters of the South had grown up under Jim Crow. LESS focus on discussing Civil Rights is pretty weak ass tea to support the grandiose claims of hte Southern Strategy.


You really are a piece of work. Opposition to Civil Rights is EXACTLY what the Southern Strategy was about.



Supposedly. Except all you found to support that idea, is less discussion of it.


Kudos to you for trying. BUT, this is why most liberals don't try. Because deep down, they know if they engage is such serious and honest debate, that they always lose.

Says the guy who has provided zero to support his claims. Mounds of evidence, but you think "pooh, pooh" is a valid argument? :lol: What a joke.



Let's try to keep focus.


From your link, with it's "mounds of evidence", what did they DO, to oppose civil rights?


Hello...Barry Goldwater ring any bells? Do you even understand what the Southern Strategy was?

It was about courting racist, white, southern voters.






Barry Goldwater voted against ONE civil rights bill because he did not like the way it addressed the problem.


That is not him being anti-Civil Rights, and it was not him pandering to wacists.


Or is it your position that any bill with "civil rights" in the name has to be good and must be supported?



To support the idea of the Southern Strategy as this evil pandering to wacists, you need something more than that.

It is also with noting that Goldwater was ONE OF FIVE republican senators that voted against the bill. It passed easily.


You have been provided plenty of actual, real evidence that the Southern Strategy was a real thing. Here is Nixon's strategist Kevin Phillips in 1973:

"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed."

Another gem from Phillips:

The more Negroes who register as Dem ocrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and be come Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrange ment with the local Demo crats.”

It was a real thing the GOP did, courting white, southern racists. You won't find a historian that denies it, only crackpots like Owens and D'Souza.



Yes. you said that. YOu have found republicans who agree with you. We discussed that.


Teh point we are at now, is where you decided to show,


HOW exactly they supposedly "courted" those terrible wacists.


So far you have Barry Goldwater voting against ONE bill, that passed into law.



This is where, you have a choice. You can double down on your position, even though you can't support it,


or you can admit that you were wrong and gain tremendous credibly moving forward.


By talking about "states rights", bussing, welfare queens in cadillacs. Why do YOU think southern, white Democrats switched parties?

Sorry chum, but I've got historians by the hundreds that all agree and document the fact that the Southern Strategy was real while you have two crackpots. I'm not the one with a credibility issue. You have provided zero evidence to support any of your claims and refute mountains of proof with "nuh uh".




You do have historians by the hundreds.


Yet, when I call you to support what those "hundreds of historians" claim,


the best you have is "goldwater voted against a bill that passed" and some rhetoric.

You do not flip a region from one party to the next with weak shit like that.



The Dems were a split party, comprised on liberal elites in the north buying the votes of poor immigrants with social spending and a machine in the south, based on the declining power of white racism.


When it gave up that unnatural alliance, the racists has no where to go. They were left without a voice.


BUT, teh South, without the alliance between the part machine and the racists, really had nothing to hold it to the liberal north eastern dems who dominated the national party.


Especially with the way the south has been changing, becoming more urban and less poor, relatively speaking.


YOu can't support the claims of those hundreds of historians because the claims are false.
 
Irony post of the day --- a twofer:

Or is it your position that any bill with "civil rights" in the name has to be good and must be supported?

This one gets the iron from its following thousands of other posts weeping and gnashing of teeth about how LBJ or Richard Russell or whatever Democrat voted against "Civil Rights Bill of fill in the year here" without bothering to dissect what that bill was. Apparently that's only done when a Republican votes against it. Otherwise, "no-voting-man bad". But put an R after the name, oh noes, stop the presses, now suddenly we have to analyze it.


It is also with [sic] noting that Goldwater was ONE OF FIVE republican [sic] senators that voted against the bill. It passed easily.

And this one takes the iron cake, coming on the heels of literally countless whines about the old tired trope of "Democrats didn't support the 1964 CRA" and "Republicans got it done". In truth SOUTHERNERS didn't support that one, of either party, in fact more Southern Democrats supported it than Southern Republicans (zero) of which Goldwater wasn't even one of those Southerners. Now suddenly they want to highlight Republicans who voted against it.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

As for the Republican "Southern Strategy" and its origins, "debunked myth" MY ASS.

It goes back even further than that, still attached to Goldwater:

img

(Full page can be seen here. It's from 1962)

The reader will notice the name of William Miller, the RNC Chair of the time, heading the strategy meeting behind closed doors. Miller went on to be Goldwater's running mate in 1964 after declining an offer from George Wallace. The reader will also note the strong segregationist Senate campaign run by Republican Martin, who lost that election by just six thousand votes. The "Southern Strategy", phrased that way here 59 years ago, is also several times referred to as the "Goldwater idea". This is the Republican Party getting in position to pounce on the soon-to-be-abandoned Southern segregationist vote even before the 1964 CRA bill came up.
Correll 's fatuous fart-post citing of all creatures Candace Owens as some kind of source that no such "Southern Strategy" existed is not only panned by everybody who knows any history at all, but check out the Tweeter video attached to it, and find out that the extent of this yahoo's "research" consists not of having some staff write a research paper, not of any legitimate history book, but a PREGGER YOU VIDEO ON YouTube, which she quickly and literally walks away from as soon as she utters the embarrassing revelation. Pregger You is a notoriously mendacious history-revision sludge factory long since thoroughly discredited, but this Candace Owens can't be bothered to break a sweat on actual research. And then a USMB poster, who DOES have the time to do that, can't be bothered either.

But wait --- there's more. NOW how much would you pay... from the PolitiFact debunk page:

"There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any." --- Clarence Townes, RNC Minorities Division, 1970​
(see many references to the Republican "Southern Strategy" in that book here)​
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated"​
-- Lamar Alexander, Nixon White House Aide, later Senator (R-TN), writing in 1969​

The much starker admissions by Lee Atwater and Kevin Phillips have already been posted and need not be repeated here.

So you've got two RNC Chairs, another RNC official, two more Republican strategists, a Nixon White House aide, historians out the wazoo, reporters at the time going back to at least 1962, ALL articulating the existence of the Southern Strategy BY NAME, over six decades ----- and then you've got a frickin YouTube video put up by a discredited historical charlatan who says he knows better than the officials of the political party ITSELF. From the outside. Because click bait.

Decisions, decisions. :banghead:

A frickin' PREGGER YOU video used as a history source..... what a profoundly clueless idiot. Pathetic.

Do tell us how the moon landing was staged in New Mexico and how Elvis still roams the earth. SMH
 
Last edited:
Thread title. "GOP today"
O.P subject: A newspaper article from 1989.

Just like the fake impeachment evidence.
The Klan have long been an important voting block for the GOP, the Party would never do anything to alienate that constituency.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

This new incarnation of them, is an irrelevant fringe.


You pretend otherwise, to give you an excuse to dehumanize your enemies.


Why do you want to dehumanize your enemies? Historically, that is not something people of good intent do.
republicans want to keep confederate monuments and everything, "my heritage!".
Democrats say losers dont get participation trophies.
Its the Klan who wants the confederate everywhere.
This is why southern strategy happened.


Yes, that is a good example of how you are dehumanizing your enemies.

More and more liberals are admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps.

Are you ready to be honest, or are you still lying?
Please link to these alleged liberals that are "admitting that the end game is mass murder or concentration camps." ...this ought to be good.

No. You know it is true and I can't be bothered. Address the facts.

Actually I don't know that is true and since you, a COVID truther, is the one making the claim, I'm gonna need links, liar.

I'm not a liar. I think by now, you have a sense of how I am a deeply honest person.

I know you don't like that fact. But on some level you know it.

So, knock off the shit. The truth is that you already have a rationalization in place to dismiss the links if I were to waste the time finding the examples.


So, let's just skip to your rationalization and I will address it.
I have no need to rationalize something you made up, liar. Link to all these liberals you claim want to kill you or put you in a concentration camp.


Why? YOu are not going to admit anything. You will just rationalize a reason to dismiss it.

I don't have to since you can't prove it happened.


Whatever. We can go back to my original point then.


That is moronic and not true. The Klan was always an important voting bloc for the DEMs, until they were destroyed.

Nnnno, not really. First off they were not "destroyed". They were officially disbanded, in 1869, and then revived in 1915 which became the much bigger one that spread coast-to-coast, the one that burned the crosses, the one we have all the pictures of. But that Klan, when it dabbled in politics at all (and most of what it did was apolitical), supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or No Party candidates) according to whatever worked in that time and place. It got Republicans elected to high state office in Maine, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and it got Democrats elected in the South. In Oregon it got a Democrat Governor and a Republican Mayor of Portland. In Colorado it was the reverse. This latter-day revisionism that it was somehow a political party machine is so much malarkey.

Oh and just to complete the history that second Klan was officially disbanded in 1944. The IRS slapped a 2/3 of a million dollar back tax bill on it and at the same time the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.

And despite the official organization membership dwindling, the racists didn't stop being racist. They joined militias and other white supremacy groups. We are talking about the number one domestic terrorists threat in the United States.


Indeed. Everything Klannish since 1944 has been knuckledragger yahoos playing dress-up and going HEY LOOKA ME IMMA KLAN. None had to coordinate with or get licence from any national network.

That's exactly what David Dookey was doing when he dressed up in bedsheets. Playing dress-up. Local dress-up groups didn't coordinate and even fought with each other.

There was another guy, one Samuel Green, who made noises about restarting a THIRD Klan just after World War II. IRS told him "Okay, then you'll assume this 2/3 of a million dollar tax liability", That gave Green pause, but happily he took a heart attack and keeled over in 1949 and that never happened.
The fact the only person you clowns can bring up on the Republican side is a State Representative from LA in the 80s who has been ostracized by the Republican party since then tells everyone you have nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Your party elected a KKK Leader to the US Senate until he went toes up in 2010, Dumbass.

I don't have a "party" nor am I familiar with whoever the reference is but umma give you some names for homework. You want Senators? We got 'em. Gubnors, Reps, Mayors etc. You want names? All you gotta do is ask. Or search, but that might not work out well, might it.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana​
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine​
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine​
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado​
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington​
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon​
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado​

And you'll notice once you get to Da Google that all of those were when the KKK actually officially existed.

Oh and don't leave out D.C. Stephenson.... here lemme introduce ya.




Wasn't that fun? I like how one wag put a 'funny' on it way before he would have had time to read/view all that.

When I get back we'll talk about Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge. Both of whom the Klan endorsed.

This is all pre southern strategy (Lee Atwater), which caused the vast majority of racists to switch parties. The stage was set for this by the earlier dixiecrat movement, and then returned with 1964 civil rights act.

Ed Jackson -- Governor, Indiana: died in 1954
Owen Brewster -- Governor/Senator, Maine: died 1961
Ben Paulen -- Governor, Maine: died 1961
Rice Means - Senator, Colorado: died 1949
Albert Johnston -- Rep, Washington: died 1957
George Luis Baker -- Mayor, Portland Oregon: died 1941
Clarence Morley -- Governor, Colorado: died 1948
DC Stephenson: died 1966


That list was in power WAY before the Dixiecrats, which was two people running in the 1948 election. It would be oversimplification to suggest the infamous Southern Strategy "caused" the majority of racists to switch parties --- those cracks were breaking long before that so it's more accurate to say the Southern Strategy took advantage of those fissures. The last significant wound to the infamous bipolar Democrat "Solid South" was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when Strom Thurmond did what had been unthinkable and switched parties (aprés lui, le deluge). Before that and the more minor strains with the Kennedy Administration, Thurmond had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, which I believe is why the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot as he was running for the Senate (he then won that seat as a write-in).

Prior to that was the aforementioned Dixiecrats of 1948, which consisted of Thurmond and Mississippi Governor Fielding Wright, which was generated when Thurmond and fellow travellers heard too much about civil rights at the Democratic convention from the likes of Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey and walked out to run their own candidate (shades of 1860 when the same thing happened). But the original crack, as far as historical events IMHO dates to 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence and about to win a landslide, got the party's Presidential nomination rules changed from a two-thirds majority of the vote to a simple (50% plus one) majority, which cut the knees off the Southern bloc's ability to hold out for its hyperconservative agenda, as it had most dramatically in 1924 when it held up that convention trying to stop the party platform from denouncing the Klan. It became the longest convention in history and required a hundred ballots before it settled on dark horse John W. Davis (who immediately denounced the Klan on his own). The intervening World War II put the regional differences on the back burner until the Dixiecrats erupted.

And then a generation prior to that, at the turn of the century, the Democratic and Republican Parties were essentially swapping constituencies, with the Democrats taking on the interests of minorities, immigrants and labor, while the Republicans cozied up to big business, the wealthy, corporations and Wall Street. That's arguably where the schism really starts, or at least where the seeds are sown.



The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth.


The facts about the Southern strategy
For this fact-check, we interviewed historians and reviewed news articles from the civil rights era.
Joseph Alsop, an influential syndicated newspaper columnist, called it "basically a segregationist strategy" in a 1962 column.
When Republican Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, his Southern surrogates played up the fact that he had just voted against the Civil Rights Act. That paid off in the Deep South where he won a handful of states, but he ultimately lost to Lyndon B. Johnson.
By 1968, the Republicans fine-tuned their approach and packaged it in a way they could win, said Maxwell, the Arkansas professor and an expert on southern politics.
Republican nominee Richard Nixon reached out to white Southerners by opposing school busing and promising that his administration would not "ram anything down your throats" and would appoint "strict constructionist" Supreme Court justices.
The strongest evidence of the Southern strategy comes directly from Republicans at the time.
That includes Clarence Townes, who served as director of the Minorities Division of the Republican National Committee in the 1960s. Harvard professor Leah Wright Rigueur wrote about Townes in her book "The Loneliness of the Black Republican."
When Nixon disbanded the division, Townes told reporters in 1970, "There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any."
In 1969, Nixon White House aide Lamar Alexander, who now represents Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, wrote about the Southern strategy in a memo following the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth, who was opposed by civil rights groups.
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated," Alexander wrote.
Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips openly discussed the Southern strategy in a newspaper article in 1973:
"If the New Washington liberal crowd could tear themselves away from Watergate ecstasy and the lionizing of Daniel Ellsberg for a little look-see below the Mason-Dixon line, they might glean a useful political insight, namely that the GOP 'Southern Strategy' seems to be rolling along — and rolling up local victories — just as if G. Gordon Liddy had never existed." (Ellsberg released the Pentagon papers in 1971 while Liddy was an FBI agent convicted of illegal wiretapping.)
Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 that the Republicans were never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the "Negro vote and they don't need any more than that."
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans," he wrote. "That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
Ultimately, winning over white Southern voters required using coded language, as campaign consultant Lee Atwater, who worked on Reagan’s 1980 campaign, explained in an interview 1981. In audio, he can be heard describing how in 1954, a racial slur could be used to describe black Americans, but that "backfired" by 1968 — requiring a pivot to use more abstract language.
"So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites," he said.​



Shit like that is why fact checkers have so little credibility.



I read though it looking for the evidence that they offer, adn there isn't any. Just people talking about their opinions on the matter and that is accepted as "proof".


To support the claim of the Southern Strategy, you need to show the GOP offering somethign to the Southern Wacists, something big that caused them to flip.


And there is NOTHIGN in there like that.


it is bullshit.

GOP platforms:
In 1960, a lengthy, detailed section on civil rights. Paragraphs and paragraphs.

In 1964, only a few lines. Short enough to post...


full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;​
—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;​

By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.


By 1968, no mention of civil rights AT ALL. Zero, zip, zilch.

By 1968 the Republicans had crushed the Dimwinger filibusters of the Civil Rights Act by Veggie Joe's mentor, Al Gore's dad, and the rest of the racist Dimwingers.

:oops8:
 
[


You do have historians by the hundreds.


Yet, when I call you to support what those "hundreds of historians" claim,


the best you have is "goldwater voted against a bill that passed" and some rhetoric.

You do not flip a region from one party to the next with weak shit like that.



The Dems were a split party, comprised on liberal elites in the north buying the votes of poor immigrants with social spending and a machine in the south, based on the declining power of white racism.


When it gave up that unnatural alliance, the racists has no where to go. They were left without a voice.


BUT, teh South, without the alliance between the part machine and the racists, really had nothing to hold it to the liberal north eastern dems who dominated the national party.


Especially with the way the south has been changing, becoming more urban and less poor, relatively speaking.


YOu can't support the claims of those hundreds of historians because the claims are false.

I have supported it, while all you have done is said "nuh uh".

The racists didn't have no where to go when Democrats abandoned them and supported the Civil Rights Act... they went to the Republicans that kept taking about State's Rights and fielded a candidate that opposed it.

Why do you think, in the late 60s, the GOP dropped ALL language from their platform supporting Civil Rights when only a few years before they had an entire section on it?
 
Irony post of the day --- a twofer:

Or is it your position that any bill with "civil rights" in the name has to be good and must be supported?

This one gets the iron from its following thousands of other posts weeping and gnashing of teeth about how LBJ or Richard Russell or whatever Democrat voted against "Civil Rights Bill of fill in the year here" without bothering to dissect what that bill was. Apparently that's only done when a Republican votes against it. Otherwise, "no-voting-man bad". But put an R after the name, oh noes, stop the presses, now suddenly we have to analyze it.


It is also with [sic] noting that Goldwater was ONE OF FIVE republican [sic] senators that voted against the bill. It passed easily.

And this one takes the iron cake, coming on the heels of literally countless whines about the old tired trope of "Democrats didn't support the 1964 CRA" and "Republicans got it done". In truth SOUTHERNERS didn't support that one, of either party, in fact more Southern Democrats supported it than Southern Republicans (zero) of which Goldwater wasn't even one of those Southerners. Now suddenly they want to highlight Republicans who voted against it.

Having it both ways: Priceless.

As for the Republican "Southern Strategy" and its origins, "debunked myth" MY ASS.

It goes back even further than that, still attached to Goldwater:

img

(Full page can be seen here. It's from 1962)

The reader will notice the name of William Miller, the RNC Chair of the time, heading the strategy meeting behind closed doors. Miller went on to be Goldwater's running mate in 1964 after declining an offer from George Wallace. The reader will also note the strong segregationist Senate campaign run by Republican Martin, who lost that election by just six thousand votes. The "Southern Strategy", phrased that way here 59 years ago, is also several times referred to as the "Goldwater idea". This is the Republican Party getting in position to pounce on the soon-to-be-abandoned Southern segregationist vote even before the 1964 CRA bill came up.
Correll 's fatuous fart-post citing of all creatures Candace Owens as some kind of source that no such "Southern Strategy" existed is not only panned by everybody who knows any history at all, but check out the Tweeter video attached to it, and find out that the extent of this yahoo's "research" consists not of having some staff write a research paper, not of any legitimate history book, but a PREGGER YOU VIDEO ON YouTube, which she quickly and literally walks away from as soon as she utters the embarrassing revelation. Pregger You is a notoriously mendacious history-revision sludge factory long since thoroughly discredited, but this Candace Owens can't be bothered to break a sweat on actual research. And then a USMB poster, who DOES have the time to do that, can't be bothered either.

But wait --- there's more. NOW how much would you pay... from the PolitiFact debunk page:

"There’s a total fear of what’s called the Southern strategy. Blacks understand that their wellbeing is being sacrificed to political gain. There has to be some moral leadership from the president on the race question, and there just hasn’t been any." --- Clarence Townes, RNC Minorities Division, 1970​
(see many references to the Republican "Southern Strategy" in that book here)​
"SOUTHERN STRATEGY — we flat out invited the kind of political battle that ultimately erupted when we named a Democrat-turned-Republican conservative from South Carolina. This confirmed the Southern strategy just at a time when it was being nationally debated"​
-- Lamar Alexander, Nixon White House Aide, later Senator (R-TN), writing in 1969​

The much starker admissions by Lee Atwater and Kevin Phillips have already been posted and need not be repeated here.

So you've got two RNC Chairs, another RNC official, two more Republican strategists, a Nixon White House aide, historians out the wazoo, reporters at the time going back to at least 1962, ALL articulating the existence of the Southern Strategy BY NAME, over six decades ----- and then you've got a frickin YouTube video put up by a discredited historical charlatan who says he knows better than the officials of the political party ITSELF. From the outside. Because click bait.

Decisions, decisions. :banghead:

A frickin' PREGGER YOU video used as a history source..... what a profoundly clueless idiot. Pathetic.

Do tell us how the moon landing was staged in New Mexico and how Elvis still roams the earth. SMH


And once again the liberal thinks that a "evidence" is showing that other people agree with him.

My challenge to you libs is NOT to show that your lie was successful.


My challenge to you was to show HOW the gop supposedly "pandered to" the southern wacists.


So far, we have, from Seawitch, one vote against a bill that passed by Goldwater, and some rhetoric.


Weak ass shit to flip the votes of a third of hte nation.


The Southern Strategy is a debunked myth. That people still believe it, is a testimony to what great liars modern liberals are.
 
[


You do have historians by the hundreds.


Yet, when I call you to support what those "hundreds of historians" claim,


the best you have is "goldwater voted against a bill that passed" and some rhetoric.

You do not flip a region from one party to the next with weak shit like that.



The Dems were a split party, comprised on liberal elites in the north buying the votes of poor immigrants with social spending and a machine in the south, based on the declining power of white racism.


When it gave up that unnatural alliance, the racists has no where to go. They were left without a voice.


BUT, teh South, without the alliance between the part machine and the racists, really had nothing to hold it to the liberal north eastern dems who dominated the national party.


Especially with the way the south has been changing, becoming more urban and less poor, relatively speaking.


YOu can't support the claims of those hundreds of historians because the claims are false.

I have supported it, while all you have done is said "nuh uh".

The racists didn't have no where to go when Democrats abandoned them and supported the Civil Rights Act... they went to the Republicans that kept taking about State's Rights and fielded a candidate that opposed it.

Why do you think, in the late 60s, the GOP dropped ALL language from their platform supporting Civil Rights when only a few years before they had an entire section on it?
The racists didn't have no where to go when Democrats abandoned them and supported the Civil Rights Act

Hey liar, Dimwingers FILIBUSTERED the Civil Rights Act. Republicans broke the racist Dimwinger filibuster led by Biden's mentor and Al Gore's racist father.
 

Forum List

Back
Top