[John F. Smith]

who is your favourite president, and why? some people choose george washington as their favourite because he was the first president.

my favourite president is alexander hamilton, because he brought our country out of hard times. who is your favourite president, and why?

[CD Hanks]

I'm going to use this thread as a stage.

I ask that anyone who reads this thread skips over it. This is just more mindless, grammar school-esque questioning by an equally inane poster who has gone through several accounts. I mean, look at the syntax and usage of words; it looks like a child wrote it. However, I doubt this is in fact a child, because someone with this level of persistence can only be an adult.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
who is your favourite president, and why? some people choose george washington as their favourite because he was the first president.

my favourite president is alexander hamilton, because he brought our country out of hard times. who is your favourite president, and why?

No need for me to flame him, since the quote is so much better than any flame I could come up with.

BG

[gohoward]

gohoward thinks that a candidate who never made it past the primaries would have been the best President.

[Sod Off Sadr]

It's bad enough that this twerp pollutes the Lounge. The last thing I want is to see his garbage in this area.

[itai195]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
my favourite president is alexander hamilton, because he brought our country out of hard times. who is your favourite president, and why?

My favorite is Benjamin Franklin because he's on the $100 bill.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
My favorite is Benjamin Franklin because he's on the $100 bill.

I'll see your $100 and raise you $99,900. Although the absolute bastard that appears on the bill is probably one of our all-time worst Presidents.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


No need for me to flame him, since the quote is so much better than any flame I could come up with.

BG

Does he even recognize the howler?

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:

I'll see your $100 and raise you $99,900. Although the absolute bastard that appears on the bill is probably one of our all-time worst Presidents.

Aww that's kind of harsh. He had a pretty tragic presidency. I agree, negative on the whole despite the best of intentions.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by gohoward:
gohoward thinks that a candidate who never made it past the primaries would have been the best President.

John McCain?



I'll actually answer this question. My favorite president is Calvin Coolidge. According to legend, Cool Cal once had a scheduled appointment with some foreign dignitary or another that he didn't want to meet with. When his secretary said this person had arrived, he said show him in, and promptly climbed out the window and scurried down the rose trestle. I bet that caused some confused looks around the oval office.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I'll actually answer this question. My favorite president is Calvin Coolidge. According to legend, Cool Cal once had a scheduled appointment with some foreign dignitary or another that he didn't want to meet with. When his secretary said this person had arrived, he said show him in, and promptly climbed out the window and scurried down the rose trestle. I bet that caused some confused looks around the oval office.

::bangs head on desk::

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
I agree, negative on the whole despite the best of intentions.

How is imposing segregation on the federal government "the best of intentions?"

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
ually answer this question. My favorite president is Calvin Coolidge. According to legend, Cool Cal once had a scheduled appointment with some foreign dignitary or another that he didn't want to meet with. When his secretary said this person had arrived, he said show him in, and promptly climbed out the window and scurried down the rose trestle. I bet that caused some confused looks around the oval office.

I've always liked the quote attributed to Coolidge: "If everybody would just sit down and shut up for 5 minutes, the world would be a much better place."

[el chupacabra]

Al Gore

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Does he even recognize the howler?

If the man wants Hamilton to be his favorite President, why not let him. My favorite is Nelson Rockefeller, because he died for such a noble cause.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How is imposing segregation on the federal government "the best of intentions?"

Well yes he was a bigot, so were many of our politicians back then. That was an awful move spurred by his Southern contemporaries. I'm not defending his record, especially on race relations, but in general he (perhaps similarly to George W) always seemed to righteously believe he was doing the right thing, even though he made grave mistakes.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by itai195:
Well yes he was a bigot, so were many of our politicians back then. That was an awful move spurred by his Southern contemporaries. I'm not defending his record, especially on race relations, but in general he (perhaps similarly to George W) always seemed to righteously believe he was doing the right thing, even though he made grave mistakes.

He gets the label, but the biggest biggot in the whitehouse was W. Wilson.

He was president of Princeton U. towards the end of the period that the town was known as "the southerners north" (a term that orriginated from them building dorms with staircases in the closet, so southerners could bring their slaves north, and have them sleep in slave quarters in the attic).

The abbolition of slavery eventually eliminated that (even though slavery was technically illegal in NJ the entire time, though never really enforced if you were a sothern resident visiting the north)... but the reputation was slow to improve.

Regressed back to those times under Wilson... and took until the Civil Rights movement before Princeton really came anywhere near being a 'tolerant' town.

Now of course things have changed... though princeton is very serious about prohibiting it's old nickname from appearing. Though it doesn't hide the old dorms. A few I think are even still standing, though the square hole in the ceiling of the closet remains (though sealed).


He was also one to get the feds to back of the KKK as they re-emurged from a slumber in the last decade. Allowing them to get quite out of hand.

I'd put him pretty low on the list of humans to walk the earth.



As far as the best president... not really sure. To much politics behind the office to clearly say. People view Carter as a terrible president, but if he didn't do all that he did, the next years after his presidency would have been terrible economic times (when it turned out to be ok times). So he took a lot of heat, and really sacrificed himself... but made a big contribution towards America, though people hated him for it. People view Kennedy as a hero... but he was a sleezy, individual, also brought the US very close to war on multiple occasions as we now know thanks to info now public. He also brought us within minutes of nuclear warfare. Only luck kept us away from it.

Reagan was great in domestic policy, but his international policies were not so great. Millions died under regimes and militant groups he supported, and trained.

Nixson only got caught doing what everyone else did (lets face it, every politician did it... he just got caught). His whole scandle really wasn't as sensational as everyone made it out to be. He didn't do anything different, or worse than other politicans. He just got caught.

They all have their good and their bad. What makes a leader good or bad often is dependant on the times. Clinton was good for the 90's. But he would have been terrible in Reagans times. And vice versa. Clinton was strong in foreign relations, when it was needed. Reagan was strong domestically when needed. Making them good presidents when they were needed. They weren't spectacular, and they made their mistakes... but they fit within their time.

I think 80% of what makes them good or bad, is simply when they hold office. The times need to compliment their strengths.

That's the good thing about demcracy. We can change leaders, so we have the ability to pick the president based on the times. A president for life would be bad. Every man has a weakness. We need them for their strengths, and the ability to sue each persons strengths, and not their weaknesses.

[MacGorilla]

Did Miller get elected King of Beers yet?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I've always liked the quote attributed to Coolidge: "If everybody would just sit down and shut up for 5 minutes, the world would be a much better place."

There is that story about the woman who was seated next to him at dinner who gushed that she had taken a bet that she could get the president to say at least three words. Coolidge's reply: "You lose."

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is that story about the woman who was seated next to him at dinner who gushed that she had taken a bet that she could get the president to say at least three words. Coolidge's reply: "You lose."

Excellent. Reminds me of what someone once said of Ben Hogan: "The only words he ever spoke to me on the golf course were 'You're away.'" [Helps to be a golfer to appreciate that one.]

In case anyone didn't get my earlier reference (a fun read): http://www.ishipress.com/marshak.htm

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
Aww that's kind of harsh. He had a pretty tragic presidency. I agree, negative on the whole despite the best of intentions.

I didn’t want to start a big history discussion of Woodrow Wilson, but I stand by my assertion that he’s one of our worst Presidents, and no, I don’t think his intentions were at all honorable.

The man was Prez at a pivotal crossroads in history: the country had come to a clear choice of moving forward, or regressing backwards. Many groups made huge inroads up to and during this time; women got the right to vote, minorities like Native Americans fought for, and won increased civil rights and voting rights.

Most people today don’t know it, but Blacks also progressed steadily from the period of 1880 to 1918. The end of WWI saw blacks returning home from fighting in a foreign war at just this pivotal time when a true Civil Rights movement in every sense as it later was after WWII, should have fought it’s battles and moved the country forward.

But Wilson made a conscious effort to take the nation BACKWARDS from that possibility. He’s held accountable, because he set the tone in Washington that crushed the post WWI Civil Rights movement. Not only didn’t he support it, he supported the Klan! Gave them carte blanc to revive (which it did in 1915) and along with corrupt southern governments, took race relations to new lows, at a time when the opposite should have happened.

It’s a horrible sham the white-wash that has since covered up Wilson’s record. Frankly I don’t understand it. Yes, the CRM would have been a nasty violent struggle in any event, but it SHOULD have begun in earnest in the 1920’s. Wilson purposefully set the timeline back; as it turned out, the later depression era wasn’t the right time, nor the war years, so people had to wait until the 1950’s for the ball to get rolling again. Decades of continued backwardness, and total eradication of 40 years of progress up to that point, set in motion with this f’ing turd at the helm. That’s a horrible record that just can’t be swept under the carpet.

[itai195]

Okay I don't want to turn this into a debate about Wilson. But I agree he's one of our worst presidents up there right next to his successors, Harding and Coolidge. Wilson's record on race relations was deplorable, but he did accomplish some great progressive reforms beyond that and he did offer a vision for peace in Europe that would have probably been more successful than Versailles was. He didn't have the vision (or probably the desire) to bring northern blacks into the Democratic party the way FDR did, either, and IMO that realignment was one of the precursors to the 60s civil rights movement.

[Tater Salad]

I love Carter!
He did nothing but…um…uh…he…uh…damn…****…what did he do…but…yeah…uh…uh…yeah…wait…I got it!…I lost it…where's my history book…uh…inflation…hostages…uh…70% income tax…uh…yeah…. He tried his best.

Reagan is my favorite modern president.
And bubba is a perv.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Tater Salad:
I love Carter!
He did nothing but…um…uh…he…uh…damn…****…what did he do…but…yeah…uh…uh…yeah…wait…I got it!…I lost it…where's my history book…uh…inflation…hostages…uh…70% income tax…uh…yeah…. He tried his best.

To be fair, if he didn't add that income tax... Reagan would have been out on his ass in 4 years and democrats would have successfully labled him as the man who started the depression.

Reagan's success is partially attributed to Carter's move. If carter didn't do it, it would have been too late for the easy fixes Reagan did.

Reagan showed his brilliance by continuing the recovery Carter initiated, and allowing America to see the rewards.

As far as the hostages, our 20/20 vision in the past shows that the goal was to get him out of office (success)... there's of course reason to show that Spain may have been a modern day example of it (bombing, leads to new leadership and pull-out of Iraq).

Carter was said to have had a phone with him in the limo and during the Reagan inauguration, in case any further progress was made.

Reagan had it as a done deal before he even took the oath of office. It was his -1 task as President[Elect]. By the time he took the oath, he already had their release ensured.

Reagan was really an opportunist. Right place, right time. His personality, and beliefs matched the erra, nothing more. If he was president 4 years early, you would have hated him. He would most definately have been more harsh on taxes. And of course, they wouldn't have released the hostages until he was out of office.

Put Reagan in the office during the Kennedy Admin. and we could very likely have had a cold war. Reagan didn't have the patience Kennedy had (as little as they were). Reagan would have launched a few non-nuclear devices to scare them. No question about it... the question is what would have been shot back at us... and what follows that.

Reagan was popular becuase he was perfect for Americans at the time. He was exactly what America was looking for in a president. His foreign policy was brutal on human rights, but his domestic policy was second to none.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
He didn't have the vision (or probably the desire) to bring northern blacks into the Democratic party the way FDR did, either, and IMO that realignment was one of the precursors to the 60s civil rights movement.

Pfft. Don’t even get me started on yet another wretched whitewash… the since fabricated post-1960’s notion that the Democratic party in actual practice was any true champion of the Civil Rights Movement.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Pfft. Don’t even get me started on yet another wretched whitewash… the since fabricated post-1960’s notion that the Democratic party in actual practice was any true champion of the Civil Rights Movement.

Heh, you know, I wouldn't disagree with you, either. I think the realignment was significant nonetheless.

[Spliffdaddy]

If you can't claim that Democrats had anything to do with the civil rights movement - then what have they accomplished?






I'll wait here while you libs think of something.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Pfft. Don’t even get me started on yet another wretched whitewash… the since fabricated post-1960’s notion that the Democratic party in actual practice was any true champion of the Civil Rights Movement.

Well, as we've discussed before, it all depends. When party politics ruled the day, the Democratic Party was bipolar: Southern Dems tended to be segregationist or worse, and Northern Dems like JFK often had to accommodate them. And moderate-liberal Republicans contributed significantly to the cause, obviously moreso than the Southern Dems. But most of the people at the forefront of the movement were liberal-moderate Democrats, and this became increasingly so with time. The lines were never more clearly drawn than when Goldwater was nominated by Republicans on an anti-civil rights platform, and LBJ pushed (with the help of moderate-liberal Republicans) civil rights legislation. Segregationists migrated from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, not the other way around. Obviously there have been exceptions on both sides, but it's no mere accident that black voters are overwhelmingly Democratic. This doesn't mean that a number of Republicans didn't contribute to the cause, or that a number of Democrats didn't oppose it, but there's no getting around the fact that it was mostly Democrats at the forefront.

[Spliffdaddy]

There hasn't been any significant civil rights legislation since 1964.

The Democrats, by and large, did NOT show their support even then >

"Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act."


So, tell me, exactly which contributions to civil rights by Democrats are you referring?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Well, as we've discussed before, it all depends.

We’ve been over this before, and you’ve been wrong about it before. That’s because history doesn’t actually change despite the since-concocted white-wash. Republicans have a far better Civil Rights record than Democrats. Period.

“In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.”

Add to that the tremendous influence of Republican appointed federal judges, and Supreme Court justices like Earl Warren, in contrast to blatant segregationists like James Byrnes, whom FDR not only put on the court, but in many ways let ‘co-manage’ the country. I’m sick of the whitewash that the southern racists didn’t get a LOT of appeasement and outright support from northern Democrats. The record of the ENTIRE party stinks, with any minor positives offset by GLARING negatives that have since been attempted to be white-washed over.

That’s not to say Republicans get undue credit for the Civil Rights Movement- it happened largely outside of both political parties, but their actual (not history-revised by modern leftists) record is far better than that of the Democrats. That fact doesn’t change no matter how much you wish it so.

It’s also a fallacy that needs to be put to rest that all racist Democrats joined the Republicans once the writing was on the wall after Democrats failed to filibuster, delay, and derail the Civil Rights Acts in the 1950's-1960’s.

Richard Russell, Mendel Rivers, William Fulbright, Fritz Hollings, Al Gore Sr., Robert (KKK) Byrd - all segregationists who remained Democrats.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
We’ve been over this before, and you’ve been wrong about it before. That’s because history doesn’t actually change despite the since-concocted white-wash. Republicans have a far better Civil Rights record than Democrats. Period.

“In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.”

Add to that the tremendous influence of Republican appointed federal judges, and Supreme Court justices like Earl Warren, in contrast to blatant segregationists like James Byrnes, whom FDR not only put on the court, but in many ways let ‘co-manage’ the country. I’m sick of the whitewash that the southern racists didn’t get a LOT of appeasement and outright support from northern Democrats. The record of the ENTIRE party stinks, with any minor positives offset by GLARING negatives that have since been attempted to be white-washed over.

That’s not to say Republicans get undue credit for the Civil Rights Movement- it happened largely outside of both political parties, but their actual (not history-revised by modern leftists) record is far better than that of the Democrats. That fact doesn’t change no matter how much you wish it so.

It’s also a fallacy that needs to be put to rest that all racist Democrats joined the Republicans once the writing was on the wall after Democrats failed to filibuster, delay, and derail the Civil Rights Acts in the 1950's-1960’s.

Richard Russell, Mendel Rivers, William Fulbright, Fritz Hollings, Al Gore Sr., Robert (KKK) Byrd - all segregationists who remained Democrats.

Your loyalty to the Republican Party is touching, but again ignores rather simple and obvious historical realities:

1. Your argument only holds water if you view the parties as monolithic entities, which they were not. I've already acknowledged exceptions on both sides - there is no "whitewash." Note that I didn't say "The Democratic Party has the better record going back to 1933." I said "Most of the people at the forefront of the movement were liberal-moderate Democrats." This is an important distinction. You've never refuted it because it's so self-evident.

2. Fritz Hollings et al. aside, the fact remains that segregationists mostly migrated from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, not vice versa. The reason for this is obvious: the Democratic Party was more activist and became the home of the movement. The Republican Party became the "Southern Strategy" party, home to the opposition. There's no way around this.

3. You appear to believe that it's a mere accident that black voters are overwhelmingly Democrat, or that they don't know any better. This is like me saying that white corporate CEOs would vote Democratic if they only knew better, or that gays shouldn't be alienated by the fact that the Republican Party is home to Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly. It's patronizing and obtuse. Black voters know damn well who was more likely to look out for them, and for the most part it wasn't the Republican Party, unless you want to convince me that they should've preferred Goldwater over LBJ.

4. I have no interest in "this party is better than that party." The Democratic Party has committed more than its share of crimes. I grew up Republican, surrounded by Republicans, in the middle of the Civil Rights era. These are simple historical realities. If you don't believe me, ask Jack Kemp, Arlen Specter, and any number of other respected Republicans who have bemoaned the party's record in the modern era.

What seems to irk you is that black folks have pictures of JFK on their walls even though, in many cases, he only gave lip service to the movement because he had to accommodate Southern whites. Well, yeah - party politics dictated that, it's another historical reality. No one is trying to "whitewash" it. It doesn't change the fact that black voters felt more at home in the Democratic Party and were generally alienated from the Republican Party, or that most of the activists were liberal-moderate Democrats. Black voters had no illusions about who was more likely to look out for them.

Can you directly answer the following questions?

1. Why are black voters overwhelmingly Democrat? ("They were conned and don't seem to know any better" is not a satisfactory answer).

2. We can name many Democratic segregationists who migrated to the Republican Party. Can you name a single Republican segregationist who migrated to the Democratic Party in the modern era? If not, why not?

[macvillage.net]

May also want to compare maps like this:
http://www.fundrace.org/citymap.php

with minority (such as African American) communities.

'Ironically', Republicans dominate white communities, but do rather terrible in communities where minorities are found.


There was an interesting study comprised of election and census data. Pretty much every election since african americans got the right to vote can be predicted by looking at census data and trends indictated in it. It's been 100% accurate so far.

Minority growth (mainly hispanic) boomed during Bush Sr's term, and Clinton came to office. Declined during his second term slightly, and it was neck and neck between Gore/Bush.

You can look at the 2000 data if you wish, and do the math to get the outcome of this election. Hint: It's still somewhat close (relatively speaking), but immigration is way down.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

"Most of the people at the forefront of the movement were liberal-moderate Democrats." This is an important distinction. You've never refuted it because it's so self-evident.

That’s simply NOT true from a legislative standpoint. The reason YOU want the actual record swept under the table, is because it disproves what you’re saying! Those liberal/moderate democrats DON’T have the actual voting record (IE actually doing something more than shooting off their yaps- something Democrats STILL specialize at over actual substance)to back them up! PERIOD! Their B.S. 'good intentions' and subsequent white-wash of the actual record doesn’t change the facts.

Fritz Hollings et al. aside, the fact remains that segregationists mostly migrated from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, not vice versa.

This point has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything, and you know it. You’re logic in this- indeed in the whole Democrat party trying to use this against Republicans, is just the height of flawed!

Segregationists wouldn't migrate from the party that WASN’T the party of segregation! HOW obvious is that?

So here's how your logic is supposed to work: Democrats were the party of segregation during the time when segregation was enforced and therefore needed to be ended, but then a few of them migrated to the Republican party AFTER segregation was no longer the law of the land- and in someone’s fantasyland history whitewash, that’s supposed to mean Democrats have the better record on Civil Rights??!!? It’s LAUGHABLE and you know it!

We've been over this before. You always try to wax over the fact that those segregationist Democrats held that position over blacks at the very time it NEEDED to be ended. Once it was, (a few of them, not all as you try to spin it) switched parties. But their actions that kept segregation alive were done AS DEMOCRATS. None of it reflects on the Republican Party, because it wasn’t the issue after the switch! You know this, but you keep trying to sweep it away and mount the preposterous pretense that it's a worse crime to have a segregationist past as a Republican in a post-segregation era, than to have a segregationist PRESENT as a Democrat where you’re ACTIVELY participating in denying millions of people their civil rights!

It's just ridiculous, a ludicrous leap of ‘logic’ and I know that you know it.

You appear to believe that it's a mere accident that black voters are overwhelmingly Democrat, or that they don't know any better.

You keep trying to bring this up, as if to say that public misconceptions change history. The DON’T. I don’t care if blacks vote for Democrats- whoever people vote for whatever reason doesn’t change history.

The truth of the matter is, most people, black white or otherwise simply don’t know the true history of the parties. Many people no matter their race, DO have the mistaken impression that the Democrat party wasn’t the party of segregation (it was), wasn’t the party of the Klan (it was) was the party that led the Civil Rights Movement (it wasn’t) and think the opposite is the case is the Republican party. (Which it isn’t.)

People simply don’t know their history. Heck, people in this country (again of ALL races) prove how easily misled they are because some hack makes a movie (ala Michael Moore) that they don’t really know the history of TWO FREAKIN’ YEARS ago, other than whatever propaganda someone is feeding them, and you’re going to tell me it’s a stretch that people wouldn’t know their history dating back to the 1950’s and 60’s? Come off it.

Why are black voters overwhelmingly Democrat? ("They were conned and don't seem to know any better" is not a satisfactory answer).

I’ve already answered you many times that who people vote for, for whatever reason doesn’t change history. The fact that blacks vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers is a disturbing fact on many levels, we’ve been over this too. It’s UNHEALTHY for ANY group to give any one party such overwhelming support. The reasons for it, whatever they are, probably even the Democrats scratch their heads over. It’s not a normal, healthy political situation no matter what the reason, as it gives ALL the parties a clear mandate to ignore the needs of blacks. Republicans and all other parties because they don’t depend on the black vote; Democrats because they can EASILY afford to take such a huge block of near-guaranteed support for granted and so don’t have pony up much of anything as a price for it. IE: It’s the “Why buy the cow…?” parable personified.

We can name many Democratic segregationists who migrated to the Republican Party. Can you name a single Republican segregationist who migrated to the Democratic Party in the modern era? If not, why not?

Once again, that’s just a silly question, and at the root of it is EXACTLY the detail you’re missing that makes it so silly. Why should Republicans feel bad that they weren’t the party full of segregationists that had to migrate to another party once segregation ended??!

And OF COURSE you can name many Democratic segregationists! Eventually it'll dawn on you why THAT'S the whole point!

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Once again, that’s just a silly question, and at the root of it is EXACTLY the detail you’re missing that makes it so silly. Why should Republicans feel bad that they weren’t the party full of segregationists that had to migrate to another party once segregation ended??!

And OF COURSE you can name many Democratic segregationists! Eventually it'll dawn on you why THAT'S the whole point!

Actually it's not. His point, which you're either missing or deliberately ignoring, is that the segregationists moved to the Republican party for a reason. Nobody is whitewashing the history of the Democratic Party, both parties have pretty shady histories if you really get into it. I don't see much purpose in arguing about the records of political parties anyway, the decisions they made were ruled by political expediency and little else. Do you honestly believe the Republicans opposed segregation from a moral standpoint? If so, surely they would've done something about it in the ~70 years for which they received the entire black vote and controlled the presidency for all but 16 years. But McKinley and TR were racists, Harding was corrupt, and Coolidge paid the issue lip service (as he did every issue). Eisenhower regretted naming Warren chief justice. And though his record on race relations in the Supreme Court was impressive, Warren is also known as the man who ordered the internment of Japanese-Americans in California.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actually it's not. His point, which you're either missing or deliberately ignoring, is that the segregationists moved to the Republican party for a reason. Nobody is whitewashing the history of the Democratic Party, both parties have pretty shady histories if you really get into it.

The point you're both (I think purposefully) missing is that the segregationists NO LONGER had segregation as an issue when any of them switched over. They moved to the Republican party over matters of agreeing with Republicans on conservative issues. Segregation was no longer an issue.

And as I've pointed out also: many of them DIDN'T switch. So what's the reason for that? Whatever the reason, it's a safe bet it had nothing to do with segregation after that was no longer a key issue.

Both parties do have shady histories, it's just that the Democrat party NEVER owns up to exactly how shady and how rotten theirs is, and even goes the opposite route of spinning and history-revising that they are the party that championed the very things they stood STEADFAST against for a solid century.

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The point you're both (I think purposefully) missing is that the segregationists NO LONGER had segregation as an issue when any of them switched over. They moved to the Republican party over matters of agreeing with Republicans on conservative issues. Segregation was no longer an issue.

De jure segregation wasn't, but race relations remain an issue to this day. Segregationists switched to the Republican party because Nixon's southern strategy was a direct appeal to them - a promise to not enforce civil rights or integration laws. These bigots were Democrats during much of the civil rights movement, no disagreement, but they've since brought their legacy over to the Republicans. At the same time, I don't think the leadership LBJ demonstrated in civil rights reform is in much doubt, and he was a Democrat... how did Barry Goldwater stand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 again?

I'd say both parties are guilty of spinning and revising history, but I don't personally expect much better from a bunch of politicians. Anyway, we're probably talking past each other -- we seem to agree that the historical record is not as cut and dry as either party would want people to believe.

[Spliffdaddy]

Huh?

Southern whites are *still* Democrats.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by itai195:
[B]De jure segregation wasn't, but race relations remain an issue to this day. Southern whites switched to the Republican party because Nixon's southern strategy was a direct appeal to them - a promise to not enforce civil rights or integration laws. These bigots were Democrats during much of the civil rights movement, no disagreement, but they've since brought their legacy over to the Republicans.

Well seeing as you've still missed the point that most bigoted Democrats DID NOT join the Republican party, then they must have continued their legacy in the Democrat party they stayed in. It’s flawed logic to try to call Republicans on this, and not Democrats.

Incidentally, Nixon’s actual record on Civil Rights SHINES head and shoulders above his Democrat counterparts. Entire books have been written on the subject. His record puts a Civil Rights deadbeat like (for example) JFK to absolute shame. Another white-wash of actual history, trying to cast Nixon as a worse opponent to Civil Rights than his Democrat counterparts with abysmal records.

At the same time, I don't think the leadership LBJ demonstrated in civil rights reform is in much doubt, and he was a Democrat...

Actually LBJ's record isn't spotless. One of the key reasons that much of the teeth of the legislation (drafted by Republicans by the way) was pushed forward all the way through the Kennedy admin to 1964, was that LBJ and JFK both voted against the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, or in LBJ's case, pushed to remove all the actual enforcement teeth of those acts.

LBJ also knew exactly who to thank for passing the 1964 legislation- Republicans. Which he did. Specifically Everett Dirksen who deserves just as much credit as LBJ.

how did Barry Goldwater stand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 again?

Read Goldwater's actual words:

"There have been few, if any, occasions when the searching of my conscience and the re-examination of my views of our constitutional system have played a greater part in the determination of my vote than they have on this occasion. I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed, or on any other basis; not only with my words, but more importantly my actions through the years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard.

I wish to make myself perfectly clear. The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called 'public accommodations' and in the area of employment - to be more specific, Titles II and VII of the bill."

So Goldwater didn't vote ‘no’ because of racism, he was opposed to specific sections of the bill on the grounds of it being a Federal power-grab. While I don't agree with him on that, it's a far more defendable position than that of many Democrat racists who have since been given a pass.

Now here's one for you: what was Robert Byrd's position on the Civil Rights Act- any of them? Who not only opposed the acts, but blatantly filibustered for 14 hours at a time? How about you quote some of whatever hogwash he had to spout, and compare it with Goldwater's words? Where's Goldwater today in the Republican Party? Where's Byrd? Which one fronted their party for most of the 1970’s-1980’s as Senate Majority Leader? Which one is President Pro Temp ?

I guess if some turncoat Democrats carried over their racist policies to the Republican party post-segregation and did some horrible damage to blacks because of it, then by that logic (unless you’re seeking a double standard here- and not to worry, that’s typical with this subject) incredible, irreparable damage must have been done having Byrd LEADING the Democrat party, and holding the power he does even to this day! So in trying to snare Republicans with this faulty logic, you have to all but TORCH the Democratic Party in order to do so! I smell deep double-standard doo-doo!

[itai195]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I guess if some turncoat Democrats carried over their racist policies to the Republican party post-segregation and did some horrible damage to blacks because of it, then by that logic (unless you’re seeking a double standard here- and not to worry, that’s typical with this subject) incredible, irreparable damage must have been done having Byrd LEADING the Democrat party, and holding the power he does even to this day! So in trying to snare Republicans with this faulty logic, you have to all but TORCH the Democratic Party in order to do so! I smell deep double-standard doo-doo!

I'm aware that Nixon's civil rights record isn't as poor as popularly believed, but he reaped what sowed as far as I'm concerned. He campaigned on a highly divisive platform.

Look, I realize there are bigots in the Democratic party today, and I realize that Democrats don't deserve all the credit they get for civil rights. I think I've made my point pretty clear -- the current landscape is so muddied that it's ridiculous to blame either of today's parties for segregation or to give either party credit for civil rights. If any whitewashing was done by Democrats, they received plenty of help from those segregationists who became Republicans.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
That’s simply NOT true from a legislative standpoint.

History is not limited to legislation and voting records - I've repeatedly said that the Democratic Party was bipolar and that many Democrats had a horrible voting record. But history also includes rhetoric, activism, and other forms of leadership. It includes things such as nominating Barry Goldwater on an anti-civil rights platform (a rather glaring point that you've never addressed). It includes being on the front lines. The Freedom Riders and activists were not, predominately, Republicans. Black people knew this. They aren't as stupid as you seem to think. I knew it and I was growing up as a Republican. It was obvious to anyone living at the time.

This point has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything, and you know it. You’re logic in this- indeed in the whole Democrat party trying to use this against Republicans, is just the height of flawed!

Segregationists wouldn't migrate from the party that WASN’T the party of segregation! HOW obvious is that?

So here's how your logic is supposed to work: Democrats were the party of segregation during the time when segregation was enforced and therefore needed to be ended, but then a few of them migrated to the Republican party AFTER segregation was no longer the law of the land- and in someone’s fantasyland history whitewash, that’s supposed to mean Democrats have the better record on Civil Rights??!!? It’s LAUGHABLE and you know it!

It's perfectly logical. If you're a segregationist Democrat and your party is becoming identified with the civil rights movement, and the other party looks friendlier, you migrate. It ain't rocket science, and it happened.

You always try to wax over the fact that those segregationist Democrats held that position over blacks at the very time it NEEDED to be ended.

I've never "waxed over" such a thing, I've said just the opposite. In my first post, I described Southern Democrats as "segregationist or worse." As I've said repeatedly, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. The whole point is that the segregationists lost that battle, and many of them migrated to a party that was more hospitable and wanted to court the white Southern vote.

This was part of one of the most fundamental shifts in American political history - how can you pretend that it isn't so?

I'm not saying that the Republican Party was one big segregationist love-fest. There have been battles within the Republican Party as well, and as you've pointed out, many Republicans had admirable voting records. But black Americans knew damn well that the Democratic Party was more inclusive and was more likely to serve their interests. Everyone knew it. If you had been alive at the time, you'd know it.

Once it was, (a few of them, not all as you try to spin it) switched parties . . .

You're making things up. Where did I say "all"?

But their actions that kept segregation alive were done AS DEMOCRATS. None of it reflects on the Republican Party, because it wasn’t the issue after the switch! You know this, but you keep trying to sweep it away and mount the preposterous pretense that it's a worse crime to have a segregationist past as a Republican in a post-segregation era, than to have a segregationist PRESENT as a Democrat where you’re ACTIVELY participating in denying millions of people their civil rights!

It's just ridiculous, a ludicrous leap of ‘logic’ and I know that you know it.

Again, you're making things up. Where exactly did I say "It's a worse crime to have a segregationist past as a Republican in a post-segregation era, than to have a segregationist PRESENT as a Democrat where you’re ACTIVELY participating in denying millions of people their civil rights!"? I've never said such a thing, nor would I. All I've done is describe actual historical trends. I've never said that a segregationist is good in one party but not the other.

You keep trying to bring this up, as if to say that public misconceptions change history. The DON’T. I don’t care if blacks vote for Democrats- whoever people vote for whatever reason doesn’t change history.

The truth of the matter is, most people, black white or otherwise simply don’t know the true history of the parties. Many people no matter their race, DO have the mistaken impression that the Democrat party wasn’t the party of segregation (it was), wasn’t the party of the Klan (it was) was the party that led the Civil Rights Movement (it wasn’t) and think the opposite is the case is the Republican party. (Which it isn’t.)

People simply don’t know their history. Heck, people in this country (again of ALL races) prove how easily misled they are because some hack makes a movie (ala Michael Moore) that they don’t really know the history of TWO FREAKIN’ YEARS ago, other than whatever propaganda someone is feeding them, and you’re going to tell me it’s a stretch that people wouldn’t know their history dating back to the 1950’s and 60’s? Come off it.

I’ve already answered you many times that who people vote for, for whatever reason doesn’t change history. The fact that blacks vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers is a disturbing fact on many levels, we’ve been over this too. It’s UNHEALTHY for ANY group to give any one party such overwhelming support. The reasons for it, whatever they are, probably even the Democrats scratch their heads over. It’s not a normal, healthy political situation no matter what the reason, as it gives ALL the parties a clear mandate to ignore the needs of blacks. Republicans and all other parties because they don’t depend on the black vote; Democrats because they can EASILY afford to take such a huge block of near-guaranteed support for granted and so don’t have pony up much of anything as a price for it. IE: It’s the “Why buy the cow…?” parable personified.

In other words, blacks were too dumb to know who was most likely to look out for them, and who was with them on the front lines of their struggle. They just imagined that the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater on an anti-civil rights platform. Got it.

That the Democratic Party hasn't always fulfilled its promises is a given - what party ever has? But given a choice, blacks knew damn well who was more likely to look out for them. Meanwhile, you're writing off a huge historical phenomenon to a "misperception." Right. Not only was Goldwater's nomination a "misperception," but it was also a "misperception" that as late as 1980, Reagan went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, of all places, to announce his candidacy and talk about "states' rights." And you want to argue with a straight face that blacks had no reason to align themselves with the Democratic Party and to be suspicious of the Republican Party? Are you also going to tell us that the Republican Party has been a natural home for gays all along?

Once again, that’s just a silly question, and at the root of it is EXACTLY the detail you’re missing that makes it so silly. Why should Republicans feel bad that they weren’t the party full of segregationists that had to migrate to another party once segregation ended??!

And OF COURSE you can name many Democratic segregationists! Eventually it'll dawn on you why THAT'S the whole point!

It's not a silly question, you've just dodged it. We're talking about some of the most important political trends in American history: the alienation of segregationists from the Democrat Party, their migration to the Republican Party, the Republican Party's Southern Strategy, etc. You seem to think that these are all mere coincidences and "misperceptions." So be it.

You seem to take this as an attack on Republicans in general, which isn't my intent. I grew up Republican and remain surrounded by Republicans. To me (and Jack Kemp and Arlen Specter, among others), these are just historical realities, just as the racism of Big Labor was a reality. Both parties have made mistakes and both parties are forced to change accordingly. I don't see that as any kind of threat. That's how history works - it's not static.

[Monique]

I love Washington because he was a great leader.

Abraham Lincoln for the courage he showed against the segreasionist South.

Theodore Roosevelt for his solution to the Panama Canal crisis.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his great solutions to the depression and his leadership during the second world war (great bio from Conrad Blake)

Truman for his policies againts the racist South.

Bill Clinton for balancing the budget and his policies which created over 22 million jobs.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Zigzag, you just don’t have an argument, and keep spinning off like a top.

You’re STILL going on about Goldwater, when I QUOTED Goldwater’s position!

WHY DON’T you quote Robert Byrd's position on the matter?

WHICH ONE is anyone any minority has to currently, or has had to worry about in a position of high power? WHY don’t you answer that question?!

I’ll spell it out for you again, so you can play ‘dodge-ball’ again- if blacks should fear Republicans because of Goldwater- then by your same faulty logic, they should RUN SCREAMING from a party with Robert KKK Byrd at the helm.

If they should fear Republicans because former segregationists moved to the party, then they should fear Democrats because MORE former segregationists STAYED IN THE PARTY, and in fact HEADED the party!

The whole sham argument and the lopsided 'logic' behind it defeats the spin against Republicans, you just won’t admit it.

Anyway, it’s all so typical. The Democrat Party can’t stand on the ACTUAL record. It makes one realize why the party needs propagandist film-makers and sham-politics to constantly prop it: it’s the party of “Ignore the historic record. Don’t cite facts. For God’s sake don’t know about any actual voting records. Just PRETEND…”

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
You’re STILL going on about Goldwater, when I QUOTED Goldwater’s position!

WHY DON’T you quote Robert Byrd's position on the matter?

I happen to be an admirer of Goldwater. His position may well have been a principled one. However:

1. He was also a politician. Many of the people who supported him did not do so out of principle, but out of fear and prejudice. His nomination at least partly reflected this, and is one reason blacks didn't trust the Republican Party. And for good reason. [FWIW, I don't think Reagan was a racist either, but the event I referred to - which you've ignored - was also symptomatic of the Party's persistent pandering to white Southerners.]

2. Even if Goldwater acted out of principle, it hardly gave blacks a reason to align themselves with the Republican Party, now did it? The Party was not exactly busting down the doors to help them, now was it? Republicans were not generally driving to Mississippi to march or register voters, were they?

Does this mean that Republicans were by definition racist? Absolutely not, no more than Democrats were by definition inclusive. It does mean that on balance, liberals, who were mostly Democrats, were at the forefront, which has been my point all along, and which you haven't refuted.

As for Byrd, I haven't defended him anywhere, nor I have said that the Democrats didn't also have skeletons in their closets.

WHICH ONE is anyone any minority has to currently, or has had to worry about in a position of high power? WHY don’t you answer that question?!

I'll try to answer the question if you'll translate it from the original Borneo.

I’ll spell it out for you again, so you can play ‘dodge-ball’ again- if blacks should fear Republicans because of Goldwater- then by your same faulty logic, they should RUN SCREAMING from a party with Robert KKK Byrd at the helm.

If they should fear Republicans because former segregationists moved to the party, then they should fear Democrats because MORE former segregationists STAYED IN THE PARTY, and in fact HEADED the party!

But that's not what happened. Blacks were astute enough to understand that as their struggles continued (you seem to think that race relations were suddenly cured with a vote in Congress in 1964), they would find more friends among Democrats than among Republicans. And they did. What's so hard to grasp about this?

I would love to see you in a face-to-face discussion with black people old enough to remember what life was really like in 1964, telling them that they were just imagining things by aligning themselves with the Democratic Party, that they just didn't know any better. I'll lend you some pads and a face mask.

[Spliffdaddy]

no no no

While black voters tend to (90%) vote Democrat - they don't cast their vote based on which candidate will further "the black cause".

No more than you vote primarily for the candidate that will further the agenda of *your* race.

People tend to vote for Democrats for the same reason. Because Democratic candidates bill themselves as representatives of "the little guy...the average Joe" - and pretty much everyone sees themselves as exactly that.

The Democrats feel your pain if you're unemployed or 'working poor' or otherwise a victim of society.

Once you convince yourself that your problems are unrelated to your own bad decisions and are somebody else's fault - that you can't achieve because "the system" works against you - that wealth is a matter of pure luck - then you've developed the 'victim mentality'. You need a handout. You need help. Else you ain't gonna make it. No sense in even trying. No need to make an effort.

Let the guiding hand of government redistribute some wealth. Take it from the lucky rich folks and give it to the unlucky poor. Because it's only fair, dontcha know.

The Democrats will promise the world. Take away your worries. Failure? Not on their watch. There'll be free food, housing, transportation, child care, telephones, even free medical care. We know it's not your fault. You quit that last job because there was some sort of 'injustice, I'll bet. And sure, you've got 4 kids, but everybody makes mistakes and can't nobody keep their pants on because we're only human and we *all* make mistakes and as long as there are lucky people around to bail us out and give us second, third, and fourth chances to get it right then we'll do just fine.

Vote Kerry. He'll take away all life's little worries and *then* your miserable life will fix its damn self. Miraculously.

(this rant paid for by friends of Spliffdaddy)

[dcmacdaddy]

Rutherford B. Hayes or Millard Fillmore.

Just because I like the sound of their names.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
no no no

While black voters tend to (90%) vote Democrat - they don't cast their vote based on which candidate will further "the black cause".

No more than you vote primarily for the candidate that will further the agenda of *your* race.

I don't think you or CRASH have even the slightest idea what life in America was really like in the 1960s, when people were giving their very lives to attain basic rights. Given your present support for the cause of the Iraqi people (which I share), I find this somewhat contradictory.

A lot of people seem to have the impression that once the Civil Rights Act was enacted, all problems were solved, and the rest was just exploitation and handouts. It's certainly fair to criticize the ways in which certain causes became corrupted, as all causes do, but reducing the struggle of blacks to attain equal rights, respect, and opportunity to mere "handouts" is ignorant. People don't risk their lives for mere handouts.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

First off, don’t bring up my name in any handout argument, nothing I’m pointing out has anything to do with that.

But to use the Iraq war as an example; this argument would be the same as if in the future with a free and liberated Iraq, Democrats managed to spin a fabrication that it was their party that was responsible for liberated it.

Let’s say a majority of Iraqis only know mainly of speeches from the late 90’s made by Clinton, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, etc. and all their various calls for liberation (but no actual ACTION that helped bring it about) and by the same token overlook/sweep under the rug/white-wash the Republican record of ACTUALY having DONE FOR REAL what Democrats only jaw-flapped for years about. And so Iraqis believe that it was Democrats who championed freeing them, who ousted Saddam and who deserved the lion’s share of credit for their much freer society.

Someone with your position then argues along the lines of: “What? You disagree with the Iraqis? You’re saying Iraqi’s don’t know who freed them? What? You’re saying all Iraqis are stupid or something? Of course Iraqis owe their freedom to Democrats! Don’t dare quote anything showing how Democrats in reality sat back and opposed liberation tooth and nail, how Democrats opposed the war and tried to stall/stop it, how even though they yapped a good ballgame about the need for regime change, and passed ‘Iraq liberation Acts’- they never enforced any of it- don’t dare bring up any of that! Just go by the fact that today, Iraqis overwhelmingly believe it was Democrats that get the most credit for ousting Saddam and liberating Iraq, and don’t dare go by the actual record.”

That’s almost exactly the type of thing your side tries to sell in this debate.

Just an aside but it absolutely won’t surprise me if in 20-30 years the Democrats do attempt to hi-jack the Iraq liberation issue. Once things go well in Iraq to the point where it’s a matter of history, and not just a current poltical ploy, and when future generations are looking at appeasement of Saddam as the same ASSCLOWN position as appeasing Hitler et al, I almost GUARANTEE that Democrats actually WILL trot out their ‘tough-talk’ speeches from the 1998 era, the ‘Iraq Liberation Act’, their ‘tough stance ‘ INSITING that Saddam did have WMDS, etc. and they’ll spin that they were champions of liberating Iraqis. The very stuff they’re all running and hiding from now and pretending/wishing they never said, they’ll eventually be fighting to have trotted out as proof of what ‘bad-asses’ they were against the -by then viewed in far more obvious historical perspective- Saddam regime. Mark my words.

Even if that all comes to pass, and 90% of the American people believe it, and Iraqi-Americans were to vote in a 100% block for all those ‘liberator’ Democrats, it still won’t change the realities of history.

[itai195]

No action? Hubert Humphrey, Mike Mansfield, and LBJ all played important roles in passing the Civil Rights Act. I can understand your desire to debunk the myth that Democrats were solely responsible for civil rights, but to say they didn't do anything is also an exaggeration.

[zigzag]

What itai said. You're using one exaggeration to combat what you perceive as another. The way you describe it, liberal Democrats never did anything, while Republicans did everything, which is just as ludicrous as saying the Democrats did everything (which, by the way, I've never said, but you keep pretending that I've said it in order to justify your rants).

Many Congressional Republicans acted in a noble fashion. So did many Democrats. Many Democrats - the Southern segregationist element - acted in a reactionary fashion, along with other Republicans. It's not a simple either/or equation, and I've never claimed it was. My point, which you haven't refuted, is that when you look at the total picture, which includes not just Congressional voting records but day-to-day activism, it was mostly liberals (who, obviously, were predominately Democrats) who were on the front lines, and who blacks trusted. It was also predominately liberal Democrats who were active on the local level, which is another important part of the picture.

Again, it was not mere coincidence or "misperception" that caused blacks to align themselves with the Democratic Party, and it's patronizing and ignorant for you to say so. Recognizing this doesn't mean dismissing the real and important contributions of Republicans, it's just an historical reality.

Edit: I would add, CRASH, that I'm not unsympathetic to your complaint that Dems get the credit at the expense of Republicans who made real and important contributions, and that younger Republicans get branded unfairly with the racism label. Times change, as do people. But the fact remains that blacks aligned with the Democrats for real, not imaginary, reasons. Some of those reasons became corrupted with time, but that's politics. It doesn't mean that there were never any valid reasons for blacks to vote Democratic.

[BRussell]

You same people have had this same debate about a dozen times. And you know what? I never tire of it!

I think it's a little strange that people talk about black voting patterns as if they were some kind of anomaly needing explanation. The fact is, the only demographic that votes Republican are white males. Women and every other major ethnic group except whites vote Democratic. So maybe we ought to try to explain the weirdness of white males and why in the world they vote Republican.