Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Bill Frist: "dangerous energy dependence" "renewable" "conservation" Whaaa?

Bill Frist: "dangerous energy dependence" "renewable" "conservation" Whaaa?
Thread Tools
Moderator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2005, 02:01 PM
 
You gotta respect the strategy...even if it makes you cringe. Conservatives denies a problem exists for a decade, and when the problem becomes common knowledge, and denial becomes a liability...they take hold of it and make it a part of thier platform.

Noowww we need to kick our oil habit.

Its the same with civil rights, global warming, and in another decade it'll be gay rights.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2005, 02:06 PM
 
Um, we all have been saying it for decades.

What are you going on about?

And it wasn't the right that was last to get on the Civil Rights bandwagon.

You do know who freed the slaves right?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2005, 02:16 PM
 
It's always been code for, "let's drill for oil in the middle of our most beautiful parks."
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2005, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
You do know who freed the slaves right?
Um, the Liberals. The Conservatives were the people in the South who opposed reform. You know, the whole Civil War thing.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2005, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Um, the Liberals. The Conservatives were the people in the South who opposed reform. You know, the whole Civil War thing.
!!!!!!!!!!!!

WRONG.

The south/north wasn't a Right/Left thing.

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge.
This is also interesting.
In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Even though they were considered a "third party" because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.
BTW the REAL digger...
The Civil War erupted in 1861 and lasted four grueling years. During the war, against the advice of his cabinet, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The Republicans of their day worked to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery, the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and the Fifteenth, which helped secure voting rights for African-Americans.

The Republican Party also played a leading role in securing women the right to vote. In 1896, Republicans were the first major party to favor women's suffrage. When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.
So yes, the original poster has been misinformed.


I know the Democratic party likes to paint it being the forefront of rights, and the right being against it.

But it's simply not true.
( Last edited by Zimphire; Jun 21, 2005 at 03:06 PM. )
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2005, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
!!!!!!!!!!!!

WRONG.

The south/north wasn't a Right/Left thing.
Please look up the definition of a "liberal" and a "conservative" and you'll see in what context I was referring to. Then you may proceed to the following response.

Originally Posted by Zimphire
I know the Democratic party likes to paint it being the forefront of rights, and the right being against it.
Because they have a legitimate reason to.

Originally Posted by Zimphire
But it's simply not true.
No, it's because you fell asleep in history class. The party system during the 19th century was very different from what it is now. The "Democrats" were a strong, southern base, choosing traditional conservative values. Many of them opposed the war; so much so that they split into two different Democratic parties. One supported the "Republican" Lincoln, the other group opposed the war.

The Democrat party of today stems from Lincoln's Republican party. The Republican party of today stems from the group that traditionally opposed Lincoln (the 19th century Democrats.)

So you could say that the party system had a complete roll-reversal after the Civil War.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2005, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
The Democrat party of today stems from Lincoln's Republican party.

Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day! And this from someone chiding someone else about their lack of history!

Where do you people get this stuff?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2005, 06:50 AM
 
Yeah, one of the biggest spins I have seen all week.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 02:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all day! And this from someone chiding someone else about their lack of history!

Where do you people get this stuff?
As I mentioned, the Democratic party split into two separate parties. The Democrats who supported Lincoln, and those who didn't. Those who supported the war, the abolish on slavery, and the support of civil rights (and who continued to support Lincoln under the then Republican party) maintained their title as the Democratic party afterwards.

The Republican party following Lincoln (because Lincoln went to war despite his cabinets' objections) gained more sympathy from the southern territories after the war. So the two parties did a complete 180 when it came to their support base. Now the Democrats were largely composed of a liberal base while the Republicans were composed of a more conservative southern base.

Why do you think Texas is so Republican? Texas was its own country for a long time and after joining the Union they went ahead and ceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy. The Republicans became synonymous with the southern states and the support of traditional "values." They were very proud of being their own nation and still recite TWO pledges in Texas, one to the state, and one to the country.

So yes, the present day Democratic party has its roots tied to the 19th century Republican party. I'm not spinning anything.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 05:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
As I mentioned, the Democratic party split into two separate parties. The Democrats who supported Lincoln, and those who didn't. Those who supported the war, the abolish on slavery, and the support of civil rights (and who continued to support Lincoln under the then Republican party) maintained their title as the Democratic party afterwards.

You had all this time between your first laughable post and now to crack a book and see how silly your assertion was, and yet you came back to pile on another laugh? Too funny! FYI, the Democratic party was still anti-civil rights and pro-segregation well into the 1960’s, let alone the 1860’s.

The Republican party following Lincoln (because Lincoln went to war despite his cabinets' objections) gained more sympathy from the southern territories after the war.
Again, WHERE do you get this stuff? HILARIOUS! The idea of the south in particular being mostly Republican anytime before the 1980’s, and especially in the period during and after the Civil War, is the HEIGHT of laughable!

So the two parties did a complete 180 when it came to their support base.[/b] Now the Democrats were largely composed of a liberal base while the Republicans were composed of a more conservative southern base.
Is this the Cliff Notes for Dummies watered down to the point of lunacy version of the history of the parties? I think you skipped a few chapters- namely EVERY chapter between the front cover, and the back cover!

Why do you think Texas is so Republican?
Texas?!!? Could you have picked a WORSE example if you had clue enough to try? Texas that never elected a Republican in a SINGLE statewide race for over 100 years? Texas that was in fact SO Democrat it went Greeley over Grant? Kennedy over Nixon? Johnson over Goldwater? Humphrey over Nixon? Carter over Ford?


So yes, the present day Democratic party has its roots tied to the 19th century Republican party. I'm not spinning anything.
ONLY in your spectacularly uninformed imagination! Please do yourself a favor, and don’t let on to lecture anyone else about history until you develop even the faintest grasp of it.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 11:39 AM
 
ole pigeon:

I think your time frame is off - the Democrats controlled the South until the civil rights era led to a split between conservative and liberal Democrats. The latter teamed with liberal-moderate Republicans to pass the major civil rights legislation in the 1960s. However, feeling increasingly alienated from the Democratic Party, conservative Southern Democrats gradually migrated to the Republican Party, which nominated Barry Goldwater on a segregationist platform in 1964. That didn't work - Democratic party politics was still sufficiently intact to elect LBJ (a Southerner) in a landslide - but as LBJ said after he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1965, "We just delivered the South to the Republicans." He was right - Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy to attract white Southerners, and Republicans have gradually overtaken the South.

So, if you shift forward to the last 40 years, you'll have an argument, although CRASH will still try to persuade you that the Republican Party remained the natural home of black voters during that time - they were just too dumb to know it.
( Last edited by zigzag; Jul 2, 2005 at 12:01 PM. )
     
zizban
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Antediluvia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 12:03 PM
 
By today's standards, Abe Lincoln would considered a liberal, I think, but still the Republicans did free the slaves while the Democrats at the time were opposed to the idea (fear of splitting the country was one reason). Funny how things change.
"In darkness there is strength, therefore strength is darkness."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
ole pigeon:
I think your time frame is off - the Democrats controlled the South until the civil rights era led to a split between conservative and liberal Democrats. The latter teamed with liberal-moderate Republicans to pass the major civil rights legislation in the 1960s.
On this much, zigzag and I agree.

However, feeling increasingly alienated from the Democratic Party, conservative Southern Democrats gradually migrated to the Republican Party, which nominated Barry Goldwater on a segregationist platform in 1964.
And this is where we disagree, as zigzag veers off into his own blurred version of reality that seeks to excuse the Democrat party from its actual past, while giving them more credit than actually due for issues like Civil Rights.

First, most souterhen and segregationist Democrats DID NOT leave the Democrat party for the Republican party, and certainly not in 1964- that’s a myth Democrats have since created that folks like zigzag happily echoes even though he knows it’s wrong. A few southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond joined the Republicans AFTER the Civil Rights era of the 60’s, and AFTER the shift to conservative issues over racial issues.

Barry Goldwater didn’t run on a segregation platform, he ran on a strictly conservative platform devoid of racial issues. Goldwater’s own words and actions demonstrate that he was no racist or segregationist. He infact, has a very favorable record on Civil rights. He was actually a member of the NAACP of all things!

MEANWHILE that very year (1964), the likes of former KKK member Robert Byrd, Democrat to this day (zigzag et al would have us believe folks like him and Al Gore senior somehow became Republicans) was whistling Dixie on the senate floor for 14 straight hours opposing civil rights legislation with other Democrats. Though the Democrats had enough votes to pass civil rights legislation (that was kicked off by Republicans in 1957, not Dems in 1964) without ANY of the southern Democrats, they FAILED to do so, so the entire Democrat party shares in the blame.

Strom Thurmond set his record 24 hour filibuster for the Democrats, not the Republicans. Strom never held the kind of power in the Republican party as someone like Byrd has held in the Democrat party (party leader from 1977-89), yet of course partisans will have us believe Reps should get grief for Thurmond’s switch, while they completely blow off people like Byrd not only remaining Democrats, but running the party. Whitewash anyone?

That didn't work - Democratic party politics was still sufficiently intact to elect LBJ (a Southerner) in a landslide - but as LBJ said after he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1965, "We just delivered the South to the Republicans." He was right - Nixon implemented the Southern Strategy to attract white Southerners, and Republicans have gradually overtaken the South.
And yet the South didn’t vote Republican or for Nixon in 1968, it went Independent and Democrat (as always). In 1972 the entire nation went Nixon. In 1976 the south went Democrat again for Carter- in fact they elected him, not the north. The issue of race had obviously passed (unless one believes Carter to be a segregationist or a racist!)

It’s clear the whole nation in 1980 preferred Reagan to Carter, and that it had NOTHING to do with 1960’s racial issues. Nor have modern conservative vs. liberal issues since.

So, if you shift forward to the last 40 years, you'll have an argument, although CRASH will still try to persuade you that the Republican Party remained the natural home of black voters during that time - they were just too dumb to know it.
This is about the fifth time Zigzag has advanced his pet theory that blacks are stupid, and tried to pawn it off as mine.

I've never once said that the Republican Party was a natural home of black voters, and in fact have said that 'natural homes' of voters should never be based on race. The 'dumb' theory is zigzags alone, and it's interesting that he keeps advancing it.

Meanwhile, ole pigeon just demonstrated with flying colors how many people today don’t understand the true history of the parties ONE IOTA, and give Democrats gross undue credit for Republican effots. (in his case, going as far as giving them credit for Lincoln!). The whitewash of true party history has obviously been pulled off well enough to completely bamboozle many people in this nation, reguardless of race.

But hey, zigzag and many Democrats of today are proud of their record on civil rights ONLY AFTER THE ACTUAL CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT ERA (the past 40 years as zigzag puts it) and excuse the fact that the party was AWOL DURING it! (the relevant years before that!) Yay team!
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
And this is where we disagree, as zigzag veers off into his own blurred version of reality that seeks to excuse the Democrat party from its actual past, while giving them more credit than actually due for issues like Civil Rights.
Neither. I'm not a Democrat and am more than happy to discuss the Democratic Party's actual past (and present), much of which is disgraceful. Nor would I give them more credit than is actually due for civil rights - I'm simply willing to give them what's due. You, it seems, are unwilling to give them any, and are unwilling to consider any criticism of the Republican Party.

We can cite exceptions until the cows come home - I'm interested in the larger picture, which is that the Democratic Party became the civil rights party. Like all political causes, it became corrupted to a degree, but that doesn't change the underlying historical fact.

First, most souterhen and segregationist Democrats DID NOT leave the Democrat party for the Republican party, and certainly not in 1964- that’s a myth Democrats have since created that folks like zigzag happily echoes even though he knows it’s wrong. A few southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond joined the Republicans AFTER the Civil Rights era of the 60’s, and AFTER the shift to conservative issues over racial issues.
I said "gradually migrated," not "suddenly migrated." Thurmond, by the way, switched in 1964, hardly "after the civil rights era."

Barry Goldwater didn’t run on a segregation platform, he ran on a strictly conservative platform devoid of racial issues. Goldwater’s own words and actions demonstrate that he was no racist or segregationist. He infact, has a very favorable record on Civil rights. He was actually a member of the NAACP of all things!
It was not an explicitly segregationist platform, it was ostensibly a "states' rights" platform, but "states' rights" was code for Jim Crow. I like Goldwater myself - he was not himself a segregationist and personally combatted it - but he voted against the Civil Rights Act (for constitutional if not segregationist reasons), and his constituency was no secret. The only states he won besides Arizona were Deep South states: Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama - no segregationist sentiment there, of course. The point is that no one can seriously characterize the Republican Party from that time forward as "the civil rights party."

MEANWHILE that very year (1964), the likes of former KKK member Robert Byrd, Democrat to this day (zigzag et al would have us believe folks like him and Al Gore senior somehow became Republicans) was whistling Dixie on the senate floor for 14 straight hours opposing civil rights legislation with other Democrats. Though the Democrats had enough votes to pass civil rights legislation (that was kicked off by Republicans in 1957, not Dems in 1964) without ANY of the southern Democrats, they FAILED to do so, so the entire Democrat party shares in the blame.

Strom Thurmond set his record 24 hour filibuster for the Democrats, not the Republicans. Strom never held the kind of power in the Republican party as someone like Byrd has held in the Democrat party (party leader from 1977-89), yet of course partisans will have us believe Reps should get grief for Thurmond’s switch, while they completely blow off people like Byrd not only remaining Democrats, but running the party. Whitewash anyone?
All true, but as I said earlier, it doesn't change the larger picture.

And yet the South didn’t vote Republican or for Nixon in 1968, it went Independent and Democrat (as always).
Every Southern state voted for either Nixon, who also campaigned on "states' rights" with the help of Senator Thurmond, or George Wallace, an avowed segregationist and another former Democrat.

You must be the only living person who thinks the Southern Strategy is a myth.

Nixon In 1972 the entire nation went Nixon. In 1976 the south went Democrat again for Carter- in fact they elected him, not the north. The issue of race had obviously passed (unless one believes Carter to be a segregationist or a racist!)

It’s clear the whole nation in 1980 preferred Reagan to Carter, and that it had NOTHING to do with 1960’s racial issues. Nor have modern conservative vs. liberal issues since.
Oh please - to pretend that race hasn't played a role in presidential politics since 1964 is nonsense. Reagan opened his friggin' campaign with a "states' rights" speech in the very town where a man was recently tried for murdering three civil rights workers. Get real.

This is about the fifth time Zigzag has advanced his pet theory that blacks are stupid, and tried to pawn it off as mine.

I've never once said that the Republican Party was a natural home of black voters, and in fact have said that 'natural homes' of voters should never be based on race. The 'dumb' theory is zigzags alone, and it's interesting that he keeps advancing it.
It's because you've never given another plausible reason for why an overwhelming number of black voters are Democratic. Either it's because the Democratic Party has, in fact, been more progressive on civil rights issues for the past 40 years, or because the voters don't know any better (as I recall, you've suggested that they've been "fooled"). Let us know when you decide.

But hey, zigzag and many Democrats of today are proud of their record on civil rights ONLY AFTER THE ACTUAL CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT ERA (the past 40 years as zigzag puts it) and excuse the fact that the party was AWOL DURING it! (the relevant years before that!) Yay team!
Both parties had a mixed record before the 1960s, the Democrats especially. Yet black voters were still mostly Democrat.

As for your suggestion that the civil rights era ended 40 years ago, that's a classic misperception on the part of people who are too young to remember it. They think that once some legislation was enacted, everything was suddenly peachy. That's dreamland.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
We can cite exceptions until the cows come home - I'm interested in the larger picture, which is that the Democratic Party became the civil rights party. Like all political causes, it became corrupted to a degree, but that doesn't change the underlying historical fact.
It became the party to exploit civil rights issues AFTER the majority of the real work on Civil Rights had been accomplished. A shameful fact that only modern day Democrats with no grasp of history could be proud of.

It’s akin to talking about a party that was “the party of freeing Europe from nazism”- POST 1946! Uh, little bit late to the party you think?

I said "gradually migrated," not "suddenly migrated." Thurmond, by the way, switched in 1964, hardly "after the civil rights era."
And you're still dismissing the fact that most didn't 'migrate' at all. Most were Democrats til the day they died, or still are.
It was not an explicitly segregationist platform, it was ostensibly a "states' rights" platform, but "states' rights" was code for Jim Crow. I like Goldwater myself - he was not himself a segregationist and personally combatted it - but he voted against the Civil Rights Act (for constitutional if not segregationist reasons), and his constituency was no secret.
Typically, you mischaracterize 'states rights' as strictly racist.
And again the bizzare whitewash pattern continues- you blast Goldwater for voting against the Civil Right Act of 1964 (for grounds that clearly weren't racist, rather a constitutional disagreement), yet offer no such condemnation for Democrats who voted against it (AND every other CRA), on grounds that clearly WERE racist, and who held far greater power than Goldwater ever did. John Kennedy voted agains the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and sought to water down the Act of 1960. Was he a segregationist? Robert Byrd, William Fullbright (Clinton's mentor) Al Gore Sr. etc. all voted against every Civil Rights Act on purely racist grounds. The party of civil rights indeed.

The only states he won besides Arizona were Deep South states: Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama - no segregationist sentiment there, of course.
Kennedy won those same states in 1960. Was he a segregationist? How is it that this guilt by association of Southern support ONLY works one-way (against Republicans) ?

More whitewash.

The point is that no one can seriously characterize the Republican Party from that time forward as "the civil rights party."
Yet Nixon's civil rights record outshines virtually any Democrat's. And again- from that time forward- in other words, AFTER THE FACT.


Every Southern state voted for either Nixon, who also campaigned on "states' rights" with the help of Senator Thurmond, or George Wallace, an avowed segregationist and another former Democrat.

You must be the only living person who thinks the Southern Strategy is a myth.
The very same 'deep south' (except SC) you just blasted Goldwater for did NOT vote for Nixon in 1968. Nixon's 'southern strategy' was little different from Kennedy's and was NOT based on racism on the part of Nixon (again whose Civil Rights record is better than Kennedy's and most Democrats).

Nixon won by a landslide in 1972- was the whole nation pro-segregation?

Oh please - to pretend that race hasn't played a role in presidential politics since 1964 is nonsense. Reagan opened his friggin' campaign with a "states' rights" speech in the very town where a man was recently tried for murdering three civil rights workers. Get real.
Again, you're casting 'states rights= racism' the Democratic tactic with EVERYTHING they disagree with since the 1960's. Lower taxes, small goverment, strong military are also issues Democrats have recast as racist ever since. Notice how in typical fashion, you use symbolism over substance to suggest a relationship (in a town that did such-and-such) while ignoring far greater parelles on the Democrat side. Reagan= bad for having made a speech in a town where murders took place 20 years earlier. Byrd,. = FREE PASS for leading the Democrat party in congress nearly into the 90's when he BELONGED DIRECTLY to (let alone made a freakin speech in the same town as) the SAME GROUP that was lynching blacks in the 60's.

Liberal 'logic' if I've EVER seen it!

Once again, the ENTIRE COUNTRY voted Reagan into office by an overwhelming landslide. So they were all racists and race was the key issue?

Amazing how rediculous that non-argument is! The 'evil racist' south put a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT in office in 1976, then the 'liberal' north and rest of the nation put a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN in office in 1980 and 1984. Your conclusion? It must have been all about race and those evil southerners somehow wanting Reagan to bring Jim Crow back to the south. Just like they wanted Carter to do eh?

Those so heavily vested in the race card simply can't seem to fathom the fact that race issues ceased to be the major factors they were in the 1960's. The nation voted in Reagan (twice- landslides) and Bush Sr. (third straight landslide) due to favoring a conservative over liberal direction for the nation, not 1960's race issues.

It's because you've never given another plausible reason for why an overwhelming number of black voters are Democratic.
Sure I have, you just haven't paid attention. The issues between Democrats and Republicans since the 1960's have been largely liberal vs. conservatives- fiscal issues, not racial ones. (Though yes, Democrats have certainly played the race card). Blacks identify more with Democrat liberal social and fiscal policies, than with Republican conservative social and fiscal policies.

Either it's because the Democratic Party has, in fact, been more progressive on civil rights issues for the past 40 years,
Like fighting Nazis in 1946.

or because the voters don't know any better (as I recall, you've suggested that they've been "fooled"). Let us know when you decide.
There you go floating your patronizing of blacks again!



Both parties had a mixed record before the 1960s, the Democrats especially. Yet black voters were still mostly Democrat.
Southern black voters were mostly Republican pre-1964 actually. The so-called mixed record is actually this:

"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."

Republicans on the supreme court killed Jim Crow, and ended segregation.
Republicans drafted and passed every Civil Rights act since the first they put on the table (NOT the majority Democrat party) in 1957.

The Democrat majority could have pushed Civil Rights and passed it without any southern support. They failed miserably to do so. Meanwhile, the minority Republican party was at the forefront of most of the legislation, and key in the passing of all of it.


As for your suggestion that the civil rights era ended 40 years ago, that's a classic misperception on the part of people who are too young to remember it. They think that once some legislation was enacted, everything was suddenly peachy. That's dreamland.
A lot of work remained, of course- and as stated, Nixon's record is quite good, better than most Democrats and extends right up to his resignation. Ditto congressional Republicans. So after the mid 1970's what major heavy lifting in civil rights did the Democrats do? You know, the ones with a KKK member heading up their party from 1977-1989? (But hey, by all means whitewash that and then float that somehow Goldwater running in 1968 was somehow worse!)

Careful, don't credit Carter without stepping all over your rants against Reagan- those 'states rights' segregationist southerners put him in office!
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Jul 2, 2005 at 07:33 PM. )
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 07:04 PM
 
If I recall from my proper education, there is no connection between the Republican Party of today and the Republican Party of Lincoln's era. In the early- mid-20th century, the Republicans and Democrats more or less traded places. I feel sorry for the (small number) of black people who think that modern day Republicans have anything at all to do with Lincoln or racial equality.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
In the early- mid-20th century, the Republicans and Democrats more or less traded places.
Early to mid-20th century! Your side of the argument has offered not ONE SHRED of proof for this (namely since none exists.)

"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."


What did your 'proper education' teach you about that, or did it just teach you meaningless cliches that history proves completely false? (Not that you'd be less than typical.)
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 10:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
It became the party to exploit civil rights issues AFTER the majority of the real work on Civil Rights had been accomplished. A shameful fact that only modern day Democrats with no grasp of history could be proud of . . .
You're just repeating yourself, so I'm not going to bother. You're determinedly ignorant of the state of race relations in this country after 1965, probably because you're too young. Your insistence that race played little or no part in American politics since that time isn't even worthy of comment. Your sole concern is with defending Republican politics. I'll pass, thanks.
     
jbartone
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 10:46 PM
 
Aren't we meant to be talking about energy conservation here?

The last line of the first post really de-railed the thread here. Good going.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by jbartone
Aren't we meant to be talking about energy conservation here?

The last line of the first post really de-railed the thread here. Good going.
When people such as Frist talk about oil shortages, I think they are referring more to shortages due shipping and production as opposed to shortages due to dwindling natural sources.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Early to mid-20th century! Your side of the argument has offered not ONE SHRED of proof for this (namely since none exists.)
In 1924 at the Democratic national convention, a resolution denouncing the white-supremacist Ku Klux Klan was introduced, after considerable debate, the resolution failed by a single vote. This resolution later passed during the 1948 national convention as part of a larger resolution endorsing civil rights.
The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as more Democratic leaders voiced support for civil rights, upsetting the party's base of Southern Democrats. When Harry Truman's platform displayed support for civil rights and anti-segregation laws during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates split from the party and formed the "Dixiecrats", led by Strom Thurmond (who would later join the Republican party). Over the next few years, many white Democrats in the "Solid South" drifted away from the party. On the other hand, African-Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican party since its inception as the "anti-slavery party", shifted to the Democratic party due to its New Deal economic opportunities and support for civil rights.
The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Republicans began their Southern strategy, which aimed to woo the conservative Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats took notice of the fact that 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act (an unusual departure from his previous support for such legislation), and in the 1964 election Goldwater's only electoral victories outside his home state of Arizona were in the states of the deep south.
The degree to which the Southern Democrats had abandoned the party became evident in the 1968 Presidential election when every former Confederate state except Texas voted for either Republican Richard Nixon or independent George Wallace, the latter a former Southern Democrat.
In case you need me to break it down for you, the base of the Democratic Partyswitched over to the "Dixiecrat" party and then eventually the Republican party. That is why the Republicans are now the party of Trent Lott, and the party that alienates most ethnic minorities. I'm frankly shocked that you didn't know this, I assumed it was basic history, but apparently not.
     
altocumulus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2005, 11:34 PM
 
i always thought it weird that conservatives were very rarely conservative when it comes to natural resources.

anyway, i'm hoping that we can do something about as we are very near the peak world oil production capability. the US has always been the top consumer of oil and now large emerging countries, like china, want to be on that bandwagon, as well.

convert all US trucks, trains and cars to renewable bio-diesel in 20 years. leave the petrol for the planes, which do not have a viable replacement as far as fuel goes.
Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2005, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
In case you need me to break it down for you, the base of the Democratic Partyswitched over to the "Dixiecrat" party and then eventually the Republican party. That is why the Republicans are now the party of Trent Lott, and the party that alienates most ethnic minorities. I'm frankly shocked that you didn't know this, I assumed it was basic history, but apparently not.
Every single thing in your cut and paste job has been addressed already in this thread, proving you're incapable of reading (let alone understanding) any look at actual history that goes against they myths that you've bought hook, line and sinker.

All of your tripe about Democrats, was them arriving LATE to the Civil Rights platfoms Republicans were already in favor of.

Nixon's 'Southern Strategy'= no different than Kennedy's 'Southern Strategy' eight years previous. Nixon is somehow supposed to be racist for courting the south, yet Kennedy's courting of the south= peachy! Democrat whitewash.

Nixon's record on Civil Rights= (as VP) CRA of '57, CRA of '60, (as Prez) desegragation of schools, busing, affirmative action, welfare, etc.

Kennedy=virtually JACK SQUAT, no CRA of 1961, 1962 or 1963. Yet we're supposed to buy that Kennedy= Good, Nixon= Bad. Compete whitewash.

Goldwater= eeevil because he didn't support the CRA of 1964 (for non-racist reasons) and won the south that only the previous election went for Kennedy. Meanwhile prominant Democrats with far more power in the Dem party that Goldwater ever had in the Rep, didn't support ANY of the CRA acts (for racist reasons) is supposed to= good. Complete whitewash that makes no one iota of logical sense.

Johnson 'passes' CRA act of 1964 due to Republican support while fighting his own party's 57 day filabuster against it, is somehow excused for voting against the Acts of 1957, and 1960 and labored to water down both (ever see a Democrat bring this fact up next to their Goldwater slam?) This is supposed to equal BAD for Republicans, and GOOD for Democrats. Again, whitewash.

The Democrat 40+ year spin= all the racist Democrats became Dixiecrats. Not true, very few became Dixiecrats, and Dixiecrats had nothing to do with Republicans.

"All the racist Democrats became Republicans." Not true, only a handful joined the Republican party, most remained Democrats.

The Republican party is somehow supposed to ignore it's own favorable Civil Rights record, because a few racist Democrats joined the fold after the major Civil Rights Acts had been passed by Republicans, yet some how Democrats are granted a pass for having had those SAME racist Democrats DURING the time when they blocked Civil Rights legislation- AND they somehow get a pass on the fact that MOST of them remained Democrats.

As usual, zigzag can't explain the simple fact that if Reagan's victory in the south had something to do with race, then SO must Carter's the previous election if southern voters were still driven solely by matters of race. Somehow everyone is too young to remember that everyone in the south who elected a liberal Democrat in 1976, suddenly turned back to Jim Crow in 1980.

Somehow Strom Thurmond (who's entire history of racism was as a Democrat) = the shame of Republicans and an excuse to whitewash the party's actual favorable Civil Rights Record, while the likes of Robert Byrd, William Fullbright, Al Gore Sr. etc. somehow= COMPLETE FREE PASS for Democrats and therefore the Dems can claim to be the party of Civil rights. It makes ABSOLUTLY NO SENSE!

Every single charge in this matter that's brought against the Republican party, the Democrat Party is guilty of TEN FOLD, and yet we're supposed to float a pass on all of it, AND ingore the Rep Party's more favorable record.

Sorry partisan Democrats, I know it's tough for you to let go of the fact that even the myths about the Dem party simply don't stand up to the light of scrutiny. Most of it is a whitewash of the facts.

Though Zigzag would love for people to believe the Civil Rights Movement took place in the 1980's- it didn't. It took place primarily in the 1950's and 1960's when much of the Democrat party was AWOL far more than Republicans.

But by all means, continue to ignore the facts, and stick to the race-card nonsense that convinces Democrats that their party was ever something it wasn't.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Jul 3, 2005 at 02:20 AM. )
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2005, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
As usual, zigzag can't explain the simple fact that if Reagan's victory in the south had something to do with race, then SO must Carter's the previous election if southern voters were still driven solely by matters of race. Somehow everyone is too young to remember that everyone in the south who elected a liberal Democrat in 1976, suddenly turned back to Jim Crow in 1980.
Since my name came up, I'll respond: I never said that Southern voters were driven solely by matters of race, I said that race has been a significant factor in American politics from 1964 onward (as it was before). You're probably the only person on the planet who refuses to acknowledge it.

Though Zigzag would love for people to believe the Civil Rights Movement took place in the 1980's- it didn't. It took place primarily in the 1950's and 1960's when much of the Democrat party was AWOL far more than Republicans.
I've never said that the Civil Rights movement "took place in the 1980s" - you made that up. I said that the problem of civil rights and equality did not end with the enactment of legislation in 1965. Enacting and implementing are two different things, and the primary if not sole vehicle for the latter for the past 40 years was Democratic politics, which is why the vast majority of black voters and elected officials are Democrats. This is an obvious historical reality, is basically the only point I've intended to make, and you haven't refuted it.

Jack Kemp: "The Democratic Party had a terrible history, which they overcame. The GOP had a great history from which it has all too often turned aside." I'd say that pretty well sums it up.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2005, 07:43 PM
 
Well then Crash Hard Drive, would you care to explain how the Republican party has become the party of Southerners, racists and homophobes? It pretty clearly happened around the time of the civil rights era, which I mentioned before.

The reason that the Republican party took hold of the South from the Democrats is because the GOP realigned itself to appeal to conservative, uneducated voters. Are you trying to imply that Southerners suddenly became very progressive and switched over to the GOP because of its record on civil rights?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2005, 04:58 AM
 
Kerrigan, you've done nothing but prove you cling desperately to a shallow bumper-sticker level of political belief that isn’t backed up by any real world set of facts, and can’t pass a shred of scrutiny. You certainly don't have room to call anyone else uneducated.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2005, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan
Well then Crash Hard Drive, would you care to explain how the Republican party has become the party of Southerners, racists and homophobes?
I'm neither Southern, racist, nor a homophone. But I see some ignorant non-Republicans are quick with the labels.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2005, 10:56 PM
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071302342.html

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
I made it all up, of course, and got Mehlman to say it. Very clever of me.

I'm glad the party is changing and that race will become less of a factor with time.
     
saddino
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2005, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071302342.html



I made it all up, of course, and got Mehlman to say it. Very clever of me.
That clicking you hear is CRASH HARDDRIVE furiously writing an email to Ken Mehlman to please read the proper history and not fall for the democratic "myth" that he's fallen for, hook, line and sinker.

     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071302342.html



I made it all up, of course, and got Mehlman to say it. Very clever of me.

I'm glad the party is changing and that race will become less of a factor with time.
Right, the Civil Rights movement of the 70's, 80's and 90's! You're still trying to float that this was the era in question where support of civil rights legislation was most crucial. Keep dreaming. Mehlman is talking about reaching out in a political sense to a specific constituency, not about civil rights issues of the 1960’s.

Take a look at an election map of 1960. Here, I'll post it for you, since you're obviously too lazy to look things up on your own:

There's Kennedy's 'southern strategy' in action, which of course was all about "Democrat efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters."

Take a good look. This is BEFORE the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and voting act of 1965. Democrat 'southern strategy'= Free pass.
Oh and who were those southerner Democrats voting against? Why, that would be REPUBLICAN RICHARD NIXON!

Now here's Nixon's 'southern strategy' that Reps are supposed to wring their hands forevermore over:

Oh gee, how terrible. Nixon carried a handful of the same states Kennedy did, while most of the deep south that went for Kennedy DID NOT go for Nixon. This is AFTER the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and VRA of '65.

How terrible that a guy who lost the south to a Democrat the previous time he ran, should seek to get more votes in the south the NEXT TIME he runs, and then not even get as much southern support as the Democrat's (fantasyland) "Civil Rights" champ. (OMG! He picked up the Carolinas!) Such a travesty! Such a racist scar never to be lived down!

Let's also keep yammering on about segregation and busing, IGNORING completely that NIXON'S record on both is far better than any Democrats! LOOK IT UP ALREADY!

History won't change for you zigzag. The crux of the Civil Rights Movement era won't move itself from the 1950's and 1960's to the 1980's and 90's no matter how many times you wish to re-write history to make it so.

The Democrat record on civil rights is NOT better than the Republican record, that fact WON'T change, and it's merely a WHITEWASH to keep pretending it will.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 12:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by saddino
That choking you hear is ...
..you still trying furiously to explain away "Carter's southern strategy"!

FACTS are just unkind to the Democrat Party's sad myths!
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 12:42 AM
 
Crash, does every post of yours have to be insulting? Whatever points you may have seem obfuscated by name-calling.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Timo
Crash, does every post of yours have to be insulting? Whatever points you may have seem obfuscated by name-calling.
Where exactly did I name call 'in every post'? I called zigzag lazy for keeping up the insistance that Nixon's 'eeevviiil southern strategy' of 1968 is some terrible slam against the Republican's more favorable Civil Rights record, when all one has to do is look at a map and see that a 'souther strategy' is what BOTH SIDES have needed to win elections (duh, the south is after all part of the United States, and gets a voice in deciding who becomes president) and that Nixon is somehow blasted for far less southern support than Democrats of the same era.

So sure, I guess because I called someone lazy, that somehow negates historic fact. Okay. Sure. Whatever. That's EXACTLY the kind of shaky reasoning that the Democrat Party has pinned it's phony Civil Rights leadership on all these years.
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 01:23 AM
 
Re: name-calling, to paraphrase one of your own insults above
sure you have, you just haven't paid attention
Re: "I guess because I called someone lazy, that somehow negates historic fact." One of your argumentative MOs appears to be following mischaracterizations or simplifications with exaggeration. Very dramatic.

We are of course speaking cross-purposes. You argue to win, not to understand other viewpoints. I mean, why understand other viewpoints when you already have access to what you call "historic fact"?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Timo
Re: name-calling, to paraphrase one of your own insults above
We are of course speaking cross-purposes. You argue to win, not to understand other viewpoints. I mean, why understand other viewpoints when you already have access to what you call "historic fact"?
Okay, what's your viewpoint on the fact that Nixon's 'eeeeevil southern strategy' is less stellar than Kennedy's during a time when support from the south was far more tied to racism?

What's your viewpoint on Carter's southern strategy since we've been given the notion that southern support and Civil Rights issues were as crucial (and therefore somehow politically damning)in the 1970's and the Reagan era, as the 1950's and 60's?

To note but two issues raised in this thread that I haven't heard anyone's viewpoint on, rather rehashes of old myths.

Love to hear it.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 01:07 PM
 
Southerners usually vote for other Southerners. That's the only way Carter and Clinton could win after the parties realigned, and as I've often said, probably the only way the Democrats will win in the future. Even then, they were relying to a large degree on the black Southern vote, which Republicans don't get. The white Southern vote has otherwise shifted to the Republicans. One of the reasons it shifted is that the Democratic Party became so closely identified with civil rights - not just enacting legislation, but implementing it, which took many years and is still underway - a fact that, as Mehlman and other Republicans have recognized, the Republican Party capitalized on. Again, this is an historical reality that everyone in the world recognizes, except you. The fact that the Democrats as a party were worse at one time - which everyone recognizes - and that Republicans helped pass civil rights legislation, and that Truman integrated the armed forces, and that Lincoln freed the slaves, and that Nero let Rome burn as he fiddled, doesn't change it.

Ken Mehlman called. He said your maps were pretty but that it hurt his feelings when you implied that he's lazy. He said he's really good at finding maps when needed, that that's how he got to be head of the Republican National Committee, by looking at lots of maps. He's really hurt. I think you should send him a card, but don't put any maps on it.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
Southerners usually vote for other Southerners.
Like that southerner Kennedy?

That's the only way Carter and Clinton could win after the parties realigned,
Yet there was no firm realignment before Carter- segregationist Democrats remained Democrats, Nixon didn't get most of the southern vote in 1968, Wallace (who remained a Democrat thereafter, even ran again as one in 1972 before he was shot) got much of the southern vote. In 1972 the whole nation went for Nixon by a landslide, and in 1976 the south went Democrat again.

and as I've often said, probably the only way the Democrats will win in the future. Even then, they were relying to a large degree on the black Southern vote, which Republicans don't get. The white Southern vote has otherwise shifted to the Republicans.
I figured you might try to pull this out of a hat to explain Carter, but it doesn't. He carried the south with white southern support, which of course he had to have to win it.

Sorry the fact is such a thorn in the side of your argument, but the relevant fact is: RACE WASN'T THE KEY ISSUE with Carter winning the south in 1976, nor was it the issue with Reagan or Bush since. The south has proved itself perfectly capable of electing a liberal Democrat in 1960, and in 1976.

Southern support will remain a key issue in who is elected president, not because of Civil Rights issues in the past, but because EITHER SIDE has to have southern support to win! The Democrats are just mad currently because the south hasn't voted for them in favor of Bush, just as it did for Reagan.

You can't be serious in really deluding yourself that when the south voted for Kennedy or for Carter, it was just the black vote, and when the south goes for Reagan and Bush, it's just the white. That's ludicrous if that's what you're trying to float. Both Democrats and Republicans have counted on southern whites to win the southern states. When liberal Democrats have done it, you admit it's just a normal strategy needed to win, when Republicans have done it, you call it racism. Typical.

The fact that the Democrats as a party were worse at one time - which everyone recognizes
At the KEY times, when it mattered most, and most was at stake. Glad you recognize it. It's the whole reason that Democrats don't get to call themselves any 'Party of Civil Rights'- because they never were when they should have been. As I initially said, you're proud of the fact that they are Johnny-come-lately to the issue, and I guess that's fine. But there's really no room at all to blast Republicans over this issue. Their REAL record is better. End of story.

This to me gets to the core of the issue- Democrats are more concerned with political APPEARANCE than REALITY.

They've pulled off the appearance of a KKK member being head of the Democrats from 1977-89 and very powerful ever since, being more civil-rights friendly than an NAACP member who made one mistake in a long career of supporting civil rights causes being an enemy of civil rights.

They're more worried over the appearance of some statement Trent Lott makes, than the ACTIONS of those at the very top of their party.

They're more worried over the apperance of Nixon making sure he won this time by going after the southern vote he lost in 1960 to a Democrat, whose ACTUAL record on Civil Rights is better than most any of theirs, vs. the ACTUAL record of their so-called Civil Rights darlings who dragged their feet on the issue, outright opposed Civil Rights legislation, were AWOL when it mattered most, etc.

I can only conclude that it's more important for partisan Democrats to have a whitewashed record they can pretend looks good in order to make their claims as Civil Rights champs, vs. having an ACTUAL record that stands up to scrutiny, and is far better.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 02:38 PM
 
And by the way, I'm not the only one who knows the real record, it's quite common to know the actual truth of the partys' histories outside of partisan Democrat whitewash circles.

Just a few of your precious myths busted:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1202/jkelly122002.asp

Time to tell the truth: The great movement of blacks to the Democratic Party took place for economic reasons, not because of civil rights

"It was Inauguration Day. Washington rang with happy Rebel Yells, while bands all over town played 'Dixie.' An associate of the new president warned that since the South ran the nation, Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race."

This is not fanciful speculation about what things might have been like had Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats prevailed in 1948. It is historian Lawrence Friedman's description of the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Wilson. Intellectual. Pacifist idealist. Democrat. Bigot.

In the old South, support for segregation spanned the ideological spectrum. Some segregationists, like Thurmond and John Stennis of Mississippi, were conservatives. Others, like William Fulbright of Arkansas and Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, were liberals. But every segregationist who ever served in Congress was a Democrat. It's important to keep this mind as calumny is heaped on the Republican Party because of the indefensible remark of soon to be ex-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

Northern Democrats deserve commendation for supporting civil rights. But rarely did that support extend to political discomfort. The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms. Democrats never denied a segregationist a committee chairmanship or a leadership position because of his noxious views on race. No Democrat has ever been punished for making a racist remark. Lott, who is about to lose his job, probably wishes he were still a Democrat.

The great movement of blacks to the Democratic Party took place for economic reasons, not because of civil rights. Harry Truman deserves praise for standing by the platform plank that caused the Dixiecrats to walk out, and for integrating the Armed Forces. But it clearly was Republican Tom Dewey who had the most "progressive" views on race. That mattered less to most black voters that year than New Deal programs.

About a third of blacks voted for Richard Nixon in 1960. But another migration took place after Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee for president that year, voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. A founder of the NAACP in Arizona, Goldwater was a vehement foe of segregation. But he was also an ardent libertarian. He thought two of the seven major provisions of the bill - on housing and public accomodation - were unwarranted and unconstitutional intrusions by the federal government into private affairs.

The speed and relative ease with which these provisions were implemented indicate Goldwater was wrong. But the bill's sponsor, Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, also was wrong when he said they would not lead to racial quotas and reverse discrimination.

Liberal commentators like to overlook the fact that Goldwater's position was a distinct minority within the GOP. More than 80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

After Goldwater's vote, Strom Thurmond crossed the aisle. But he was the only prominent Dixiecrat in Congress to do so. The others remained Democrats in good standing.

Thurmond was joining the Republicans. The Republicans weren't joining him. And while Thurmond the Democrat had a detestable record on race, that of Thurmond the Republican is pretty good. He was among the first of Southern senators to hire blacks for his staff. He supported blacks for judgeships. He voted for extension of the Voting Rights Act.

A principal difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans see people as individuals, while Democrats view them chiefly as members of groups. Republicans stand for equal justice under law, and oppose all forms of racism. The benign racism of racial quotas is much less pernicious than the malign racism of segregation. But it's still racism.

The Democratic Party, the party of slavery and segregation, has a guilty past. The Republican Party, which was founded explicitly to fight slavery, and which has remained true to its founding principles, does not.
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Okay, what's your viewpoint ... Love to hear it.
I largely agree with ziggy's POV but also his tone. As for this:
The great movement of blacks to the Democratic Party took place for economic reasons, not because of civil rights.
It's a false binary: reality isn't either/or. Race issues and economics are more connected than they are separate.
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 03:39 PM
 
Funny, the first black, Shirley Chisholm, to run for president sure didn't do it on a Republican ticket:
She was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1968 during a time when the country was divided and the Vietnam war was at its height. She served 14 years in Congress, ending her term when Ronald Reagan was president.

Chisholm was initially assigned to the House's Agriculture Committee, which had little or no impact on her urban district. In a bold and unprecendented move, the rookie Congresswoman demanded to be reassigned. Her request was granted and she was placed on the Veterans Affairs Committee.

'Women have learned to flex their political muscles. You got to flex that muscle to get what you want,' Chisholm once said. She was not shy about flexing her own political muscles.

'Our representative democracy is not working because the Congress that is supposed to represent the voters does not respond to their needs. I believe the chief reason for this is that it is ruled by a small group of old men,' she wrote in her book 'Unbought and Unbossed.'

In 1972, Chisholm ran for the Democratic nomination for president. When southern segregationist George Wallace was shot and paralyzed during the campaign, Chisholm visited him in the hospital. Wallace was surprised to see Chisholm and asked what her supporters would say of her visit to his hospital bed. 'I know what they're going to say,' Chisholm recalled. 'But I wouldn't want what happened to you to happen to anyone.' Wallace later helped her get key votes to pass a law that allowed the minimum wage to apply to domestic workers.
I saw a documentary about her in which she found she wasn't fully trusted by either the traditional women's rights movement (dominated by white women) or by the then-established civil rights movement (dominated by black men). Even though her epitaph now is the first African-American woman elected to Congress, she understood that politics was all about groups of hetrogenous ideas and decidedly mixed agendas.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Timo
Funny, the first black, Shirley Chisholm, to run for president sure didn't do it on a Republican ticket:
The first 3 black senators, Hiram Revels, Blanche Bruce, and Edward Brooke sure didn't do it on a Democrat ticket.

Where were Kennedy, Carter or Clinton's high office appointments of blacks? Republicans can credit a National Security Advisor and two Secretary of State positions. Those sure didn't happen on a Democrat ticket.


Nice try, but even in the arena of who has put blacks into higher levels of office, and first, the Democrat record doesn't outshine the Republican record.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Timo
I largely agree with ziggy's POV but also his tone. As for this:

It's a false binary: reality isn't either/or. Race issues and economics are more connected than they are separate.
The actual record shows that blacks have often voted not just on the issue of race, as they've supported candidates not based on a more favorable civil rights record, but on social/economic policies. The example of Dewey vs. Truman, and black support of foot-dragging and/or segregationist Democrats bears this out. And this is true of all races- people tend to vote on what they consider best for their wallet.

It's only a liberal tactic to paint disagreements on economic policies between liberal and conservatives as overtly 'racist', and being only about race issues. Like the constant liberal mantra that lower taxes/smaller less-evasive government= racism. This goes back to Kelly's point about Democrats seeing people as groups first, not individuals. Republicans realize that sound economic policy is sound economic policy, period.

The truth is: (again REALITY vs. the Democrat's perfered 'let's make-believe' whitewash) I don't see where liberals have ever really delivered on many of their economic promises to blacks, not in the least. Blacks are probably worse off economically after 40+ years of failed liberal social policies that have clearly contributed to the destruction of much of the black family structure, and the rise of drug and crime ridden inner cities far worse than they were historically.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Jul 16, 2005 at 05:29 PM. )
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Like that southerner Kennedy?
I was referring to Carter and Clinton because they're the only Democrats to have won national elections since the realignment began. That's what this discussion is about: realignment, which occurred after JFK. Indeed, the fact that JFK won the South only serves to reinforce my point: that after civil rights, the Democrats could not win in the South without a Southern candidate.

Yet there was no firm realignment before Carter- segregationist Democrats remained Democrats, Nixon didn't get most of the southern vote in 1968, Wallace (who remained a Democrat thereafter, even ran again as one in 1972 before he was shot) got much of the southern vote. In 1972 the whole nation went for Nixon by a landslide, and in 1976 the south went Democrat again.
We've already been over the fact that Nixon won a number of Southern states in 1968 that had previously been solidly Democratic. The others went to Wallace, a segregationist, but might otherwise have gone to Nixon, just as they went to Goldwater before him. Indeed, the 1968 election is often referred to as the "realignment election" for the very reason that Nixon took so many Southern states. The realignment wasn't instantaneous; these things seldom are.

I figured you might try to pull this out of a hat to explain Carter, but it doesn't. He carried the south with white southern support, which of course he had to have to win it.

Sorry the fact is such a thorn in the side of your argument, but the relevant fact is: RACE WASN'T THE KEY ISSUE with Carter winning the south in 1976, nor was it the issue with Reagan or Bush since. The south has proved itself perfectly capable of electing a liberal Democrat in 1960, and in 1976.
Yes, because as I said, Southerners will still vote for other Southerners. What changed is that they also became willing to vote for Republicans. That's what this is about. Your references to 1960 only serve to reinforce my point: that the only way a Democrat could get elected after 1965 was if he was from the South.

Southern support will remain a key issue in who is elected president, not because of Civil Rights issues in the past, but because EITHER SIDE has to have southern support to win! The Democrats are just mad currently because the south hasn't voted for them in favor of Bush, just as it did for Reagan.
Well, yes, but that doesn't address the fact or the reasons for the realignment.

You can't be serious in really deluding yourself that when the south voted for Kennedy or for Carter, it was just the black vote, and when the south goes for Reagan and Bush, it's just the white. That's ludicrous if that's what you're trying to float. Both Democrats and Republicans have counted on southern whites to win the southern states. When liberal Democrats have done it, you admit it's just a normal strategy needed to win, when Republicans have done it, you call it racism. Typical.
I never said it was "just the black vote" - I said that the Democrats relied on the black vote and the Republicans have been able to carry the South even without the black vote - again, evidence of a notable realignment.

Race is not the only factor in American politics, but as Mr. Mehlman, noted, it's been an important factor.

At the KEY times, when it mattered most, and most was at stake. Glad you recognize it. It's the whole reason that Democrats don't get to call themselves any 'Party of Civil Rights'- because they never were when they should have been. As I initially said, you're proud of the fact that they are Johnny-come-lately to the issue, and I guess that's fine. But there's really no room at all to blast Republicans over this issue. Their REAL record is better. End of story.

This to me gets to the core of the issue- Democrats are more concerned with political APPEARANCE than REALITY.

They've pulled off the appearance of a KKK member being head of the Democrats from 1977-89 and very powerful ever since, being more civil-rights friendly than an NAACP member who made one mistake in a long career of supporting civil rights causes being an enemy of civil rights.

They're more worried over the appearance of some statement Trent Lott makes, than the ACTIONS of those at the very top of their party.

They're more worried over the apperance of Nixon making sure he won this time by going after the southern vote he lost in 1960 to a Democrat, whose ACTUAL record on Civil Rights is better than most any of theirs, vs. the ACTUAL record of their so-called Civil Rights darlings who dragged their feet on the issue, outright opposed Civil Rights legislation, were AWOL when it mattered most, etc.

I can only conclude that it's more important for partisan Democrats to have a whitewashed record they can pretend looks good in order to make their claims as Civil Rights champs, vs. having an ACTUAL record that stands up to scrutiny, and is far better.
Some say that Ritalin is over-prescribed.
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2005, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
And by the way, I'm not the only one who knows the real record, it's quite common to know the actual truth of the partys' histories outside of partisan Democrat whitewash circles.

Just a few of your precious myths busted:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1202/jkelly122002.asp
This is just more "the Democrats behaved badly too," which we already know. It doesn't refute anything about the Southern Strategy or party realignment in general.
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2005, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
The actual record shows that blacks have often voted not just on the issue of race, as they've supported candidates not based on a more favorable civil rights record, but on social/economic policies. The example of Dewey vs. Truman, and black support of foot-dragging and/or segregationist Democrats bears this out. And this is true of all races- people tend to vote on what they consider best for their wallet.
I agree to a point. Blacks, like any other folk, vote for any number of reasons, and it would be disingenous to paint them as "civil-rights only" folk. Paritsans and extremists in both camps are the ones who enjoy the luxury of single-mindedness in politics; the rest of us have to muddle along and occassionally hold our noses while we vote.

But with regard to the characterization of "best for their wallet" -- certainly economics is the key factor for most folks voting, but more importantly people vote for what they "feel" is right, and economics might be merely one facet of this interconnected feeling. Like I said above, race and economics are connected in interesting ways.

Plus, economics isn't a thing -- it's a collection of competing ideas, and when it is encountered in politics, it is a collection of completing ideas and mythology. Like the fairy tales Republicans tell about increasing spending while cutting taxes. That's just a way to force social spending to be eroded in favor of military projects.

It's only a liberal tactic to paint disagreements on economic policies between liberal and conservatives as overtly 'racist', and being only about race issues.
No one has said that here. You've read this into my statement in a "oh that reminds me and another thing too!" kind of way. Perhaps you've decided you know what I mean better than I do -- or perhaps you've sized me up a a "liberal tactian." I've already stated that I don't care for your debate-school score-points drama contest MO.

No one I know would ever flatten the complexity and interconnectiveness of race and economics into a simple equation where one ideology is racist, and one isn't. But at the same time it would be irresponsible to suggest that different economic policies don't affect different portions of the country (geographically, socially, by age, etc) in different ways.

Like the constant liberal mantra that lower taxes/smaller less-evasive government= racism. This goes back to Kelly's point about Democrats seeing people as groups first, not individuals. Republicans realize that sound economic policy is sound economic policy, period.
That equation isn't one I've ever heard right-minded folks think, which makes me I think it's an invention. A straw-man. I have heard, however, that liberals do not necessarily think laissez-faire policies, economic or otherwise, come without a social price. And while you may laud the idea that Dems see people as groups first (again, I've never seen this in my experience), wouldn't the opposite also then be true: Repubs seem to deny we exist at all as groups.

The truth is: (again REALITY vs. the Democrat's perfered 'let's make-believe' whitewash)
A typical tactic in debate to claim truth is to appeal using the words "reality" or "natural," which you go one better by contrasting your truth-claim against what you characterize as make-believe. When folks talk like this, it always makes me think they have either something to hide, they really think life is simple rather than complicated, or (related) they've flattened a very complex debate to serve mere rhetorical purposes. Which I guess is supposed to make me or someone like me cower under the True Weight of Your Truth.

It's like I said earlier: maybe you've got a point under the score-points flourish, but it's really hard to see. And when ideas aren't presented clearly, no matter how good they are, they tend to get lost. Your audience, in short, doesn't care.

Unless your point is merely to be entertaining by being insulting, something that Rush Limbaugh said was his purpose to a friend of mine once. Just "entertainment."

I don't see where liberals have ever really delivered on many of their economic promises to blacks, not in the least.
I'm not sure any economics promises, apart from those made to wealthy folks, have delivered. That issue is larger than race YET connected to it.

Blacks are probably worse off economically after 40+ years
yes
of failed liberal social policies that have clearly contributed to the destruction of much of the black family structure, and the rise of drug and crime ridden inner cities far worse than they were historically.
You say clearly, but now I'm the one who doesn't see it. Look, you've got to stop blaming liberals for the problems in this country, because this country got this way with help from both the left and the right. Myopticism is disingenuous. You do no one a service by "blaming" a group or an ideology, and at worse you sound quite patronizing to the folks you claim sympathy with.

I think the destruction of inner city neighborhoods far predates, in systemic cause, the economic policies of the Great Society or even New Deal. For example, this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846) flatly disagrees with you regarding the origins of "drug and crime ridden inner cities", and it's based on research, rather than politics. Take a look if you really want to know what you're talking about.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2005, 12:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by zigzag
This is just more "the Democrats behaved badly too," which we already know. It doesn't refute anything about the Southern Strategy or party realignment in general.
It's not the Democrats behaved badly 'too', it's the Democrats behaved worse than the party they are always accusing of racism and failing on civil rights issues. Keep trying to whitewash that fact- but history STILL hasn't changed for you!
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2005, 01:09 AM
 
Oh look, it's crash and zigzag's biannual debate over the Southern Strategy. Do you two actually think up new stuff each time?
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2005, 01:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Timo

No one I know would ever flatten the complexity and interconnectiveness of race and economics into a simple equation where one ideology is racist, and one isn't. But at the same time it would be irresponsible to suggest that different economic policies don't affect different portions of the country (geographically, socially, by age, etc) in different ways.

That equation isn't one I've ever heard right-minded folks think, which makes me I think it's an invention. A straw-man.
Thought he rest of your post was measured, it’s hard to take you seriously when you throw in things like this.

You’re going say with a straight face that Democrats never call anyone racist simply for disagreeing with them on economic and social issues? Get off it.

[Charles Rangel (D) said of Republicans who favor limited government, "It's not 'spic' or '******' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'"]

But one of the more blatant examples, and pretty much a perfect illustration. Oh but wait, your out is that you don’t know Charles Rangel. But of course. I forgot I was speaking only of you, and only within the context of this thread, not the Democrat party, a good many members of which you probably don't know.

Might I suggest next you entertain us with the notion that: “No one you know…” ever compares George Bush to Hitler, calls people they disagree with Nazis, plays the race/homophobe/sexist cards, etc. etc. And of course, because you ‘don’t know anyone…’ who does any of those things, everyone is supposed to buy your anecdotal example, and ignore the SCORES of times they’ve witnessed partisan Democrats do all of the above. Oh wait, we must have imagined all that. Democrats would never compare someone with the KKK or Hitler! Perish forbid!



Anyway:
I understand why Democrats want so much to hang on the fallacy of being the ‘party of Civil Rights’. I understand, and I actually empathize. After losing so steadily for so long, the minority bloc seems to be one of the Democrats’ last remaining “sure things”. I understand completely why they'll cling to the myths of some civil rights champion Democrat Party that never really was; the last thing any Democrat wants is for more people to wake up to the truth that there’s really no such thing as a political party ‘of Civil Rights’, and if there was, it SURE AS HELL wouldn't be the Democrat Party with its atrocious record.

I can also understand why Democrats WANT to pretend that current times are just as racially bad as the segregated times of the 1950’s and 1960’s, and that social issues they support are just as life and death as people dodging fire hoses and attack dogs. If one’s party was largely AWOL during the crux of the actual civil rights movement - at the time when it mattered most- why not pretend that it’s still those same times, and that now, finally, your party can claim to be leading the charge? Yay team!

This thread started with several clear examples of how secure some people are in their whitewashed and beyond ignorant beliefs about the parties.

I’d be willing to bet, if I hadn’t said anything first, there would have been no effort what-so-ever at a correction from the left side of the aisle. Partisan Democrats seem more than willing to let the myths stand unchallenged, no matter how blatant the hyperbole spewed, so long as it supports the myth of ‘civil rights champ Democrats’, and ‘Republican racists’. The whitewash simply HAS to continue. It’s an effective battering ram current Democrats will probably never be willing to part with.

Imagine where the already down and out Democratic party would be if it was more common knowledge that even it’s great myths of ‘becoming the party of Lincoln’ and the champions of civil rights are just that- myths! We simply can’t have it.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2005, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Oh look, it's crash and zigzag's biannual debate over the Southern Strategy. Do you two actually think up new stuff each time?
I dunno, has history changed since last time?

Who knows, maybe by next year, the space-time continuum will have flipped upside down and swapped the Republican and Democrat records on Civil Rights issues! Ya never know!
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,