[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I noticed that too. He's running on bringing home the bacon. He's in big trouble, too. He's considered to be the most vulnerable senator in this Abramoff business. I think it's a possibility he could go to prison before this is over.

I voted against Baucus (not for the same reasons you did, I'm sure ) and I'm going to vote against Burns. I personally hope Tester wins the Dem primary. Didn't Morrison just recently reveal he had an affair? Haha. Well it worked for Clinton.

Morrison is too slick for me. He's one of the many trial lawyers who jumped in at the tail end of the big tabacco suit to make a gazillion.

I think he's payday for his work on that lawsuit was the equivilent to something of the sort of $50,000/hour.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

OAW, there is simply NO correlation between slavery and the modern voting patterns of not just the south- but the entire nation. The entire country (plenty of states that never have had slavery) has trended Republican many times since 1964. Singling out the south, and specifically the 2004 election and trying to tie it to anything to do with slavery, is just pure silliness.

Uh ... and just how do those graphs NEGATE anything that I've said?

1968 - Wallace and Nixon (neither Democrats) split the South with the exception of Texas.

1972 - Nixon sweeps the South (and most of the rest of the country)

1976 - Carter wins the South, after Wallace pulls out and endorses him. Watergate scandal likely had an effect as well.

1980 - Reagan sweeps the south, except for Georgia ... Carter's home state.

1984 - Reagan sweeps the south (and most of the rest of the country)

1988 - Bush sweeps the the south.

1992 - Clinton and Bush split the south. Clinton is a southerner is a mitigating factor.

1996 - Clinton and Dole split the south with Clinton losing Georgia this time. Again, Clinton is southerner.

Nearly all of these elections show the Democrats losing in the South ... with the exception of one election where a Southern Democrat won when an avowed segregationist dropped out and endorsed him, and two other instances when a Southern Democrat could only manage to split the South. Again, how do these graphs contradict what I said in my previous post?

Anyway, the issue isn't the "entire nation" .... but rather the South. The issue is a region that was reliably in the Democratic camp at the presidential level for over 100 years has done a complete, and almost totally consistent switch. The question is why? Unfortunately, it is quite common for some to lose sight of the forest for the trees when dealing with such topics. Hence, your commentary regarding the correlation between slavery and modern voting patterns of the South.

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture for a second. You are somewhat correct in a narrow sense that this trend is not about slavery per se. What you seem to be losing sight of ... intentionally or unintentionally ... despite overwhelming evidence to support it, is that the issue is race. The South was the region of the country that practiced slavery. The South was the region of the country that instituted Jim Crow and segregation afterwards. The South was the region of the country that most intensely resisted civil rights legislation after that. Notice a pattern here? The bottom line here is that the region of the country that has the strongest history of anti-black sentiment .... culturally, socially, economically, politically, and legislatively .... has gone from being solidly Democratic, when the party supported those sentiments, to Republican, when the Democratic party took steps against such sentiments.

1948 - Strom Thurmond ... previously a Democratic senator, splits with the party explicitly on the issue of segregation and Jim Crow and runs for president as a Dixiecrat against Democrat Harry Truman ... who had issued Executive Orders desegregating the military. The Dixiecrats as a party disbanded soon thereafter and most, if not all of them ... including Thurmond (Jesse Helms, et al) became Republicans.

1954 - Brown vs. Board of Education - segregation is public schools is overturned and ruled unconstitutional. And as we know, all hell broke loose over the South. Massive resistance was forthcoming from local politicians (e.g. Senator Byrd in Virginia who organized a movement to close the schools rather than desegregate, and Gov. Faubus in Arkansas who called out the state National Guard to block black students from going to Little Rock High School, etc.)

1964 - Civil Rights Act of 1964 signed by Lyndon Johnson, resulting in even more defections of white Southerners from the Democratic party. And he knew it would happen because he said after signing it that the Democrats would lose the South for a generation because of it.

For one to deny that race is at the heart of this trend in the South is to be, quite frankly, delusional.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Additionally, before the Democrats took over North Carolina for nearly 100 years, a stranglehold only recently almost broken (the state legislature is tied basically) there were Republicans in the late 1800s. They were black farmers and white populists from the western part of the state. And the Democrats campaigned on keeping them out of office.

............

Republican history is filled with examples and events that have treated blacks as equals, elected them to office, placed them in cabinet positions. Unfortunately for Republicans this history is not taught in public school.

Vmarks,

Please. Just stop it.

It should be clear by now by that party affiliation and political ideology aren't necessarily the same thing. In fact, I think I made that very point somewhere around here. Without question what you say is true. Having said that, the Republican party of today is not the Party of Lincoln ... the party that blacks overwhelmingly supported until the 1950s when allegiances started to shift due to Truman's signing of an Executive Order banning segregation in the military and were solidified when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It should be clear by now that the constituency of the parties has changed dramatically since the 1800s. The bottom line is that from a racial politics perspective ... the parties have essentially swapped places. The fact that the name is still the same is immaterial.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Not to mention that the so-called "Blue States" are, in fact, not Blue states but are composed of rural conservatives and large enclaves of urban liberals. The concentration of liberals in large urban centers being enough to carry the entire state's Electoral College votes, making it far more accurate to refer to "Blue Cities" and "Red States."

http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet...4-election-map

Which further blows away OAW's Civil War maps.

.....

It is also the very valid reason why the majority of the country, composed of small and medium-sized cities and towns do not have the "homeless problem" evinced in large cities. The homeless, not being the "stupid," go where the hand-outs are - in the large, liberal urban centers.

In the rest of the country, you're expected to get a job and support yourself. What every card-carrying liberal seems to forget is that the majority of this country is not looking for a hand-out.

Wow. Interesting little rant. Rather uninformed, but interesting nevertheless.

To cite a graph showing a lot of red states and few blue urban areas and then attempt to assert that the red constitutes a majority is well, uh .... pretty dense. The St. Louis metro area where I am from, which is certainly not a major metro area like Chicago or New York, has more population than the entire red states of North Dakota and South Dakota combined. So what happens when you throw New York, and L.A, and San Francisco, and Philadelphia in the mix? Need I remind you that Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore due to the vote in the blue urban areas? To confuse population density with geographic area is just plain ... you know, nevermind.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

Uh ... and just how do those graphs NEGATE anything that I've said?

How does it negate the nonsense you've spouted? Because NONE of it has a thing to do with SLAVERY! Are you really so mired in your narrow 'everyone is racist ' worldview that you're that dense?

1968 Nixon DID NOT sweep the South! Wallace had nothing to do with Nixon- the man was a Democrat, he remained a Democrat, he was never a Republican nor had anything to do with the Republican party, he just didn't run as one in 1968. He's typical of most segregationist Democrats, the majority of whom remained Democrats.

And the whole crackpot analogy of getting the southern vote= supporting slavery must mean every Democrat that held the white house since the 1860's wanted slavery. The big irony of the whole stupid 'southern strategy argument dredged up against Nixon, is that Nixon didn't win the majority of the south in 2 out of 3 white house runs- Meanwhile, Kennedy's southern strategy DID win the south in 1960 for the Dems. Nixon's 3rd run and only win of the entire south was part of a national sweep. Yet Dems ever since have tried to characterize Nixon's strategy as racist, and JFK's as... oh, well, he just needed the south to win. Your silly 'slavery' argument is only used when it's a Republican winning the south- even though you have to fast-forward all the way to 2000 before there's anything even resembling a north/south Dem/Rep split (while there's been the exact OPPOSITE!) Hence the reason airheads first dredged up the silly slavery map comparison after losing again in 2004.

In '72 Nixon won pretty much almost THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just the south! It had nothing to do with freakin' slavery except in your mind. Sorry if it doesn't jibe with your warped reality, but the south is part of the United States and the entire nation has many times trended Republicans since 1964- you're just singling it out to try and fit your silly slave state-tie in. Look at the maps. All the blue states (Rep) were not slave states! Even California has been solidly Republican up until the last 4 elections.

1976- your silly slave state nonsense once again flips totally on it's ass as the south went for the liberal (faux moderate) Democrat, not the conservative Republican. No one thought Carter of all people was going to bring back freakin' slavery.

1980- again, most of the country went for Reagan, not just the south. In your narrow-minded view, that must mean the New England states must have been slave states.

1984- again, most of the country- Reagan.

1988- most of the country for Bush.

1992- the south is split Dem/Rep! ONCE AGAIN there goes your "the slave states" only vote for Republicans bullcrap straight out the window. The south actually switches parties -even goes for third parties- more consistently than much of the rest of the country.

1996- ditto.

The irony of your whole non-argument, is that Republicans never had a thing to do with slavery- Democrats did. Republicans ENDED slavery, and fought for civil rights against Democrats straight into the 1960's.

You've trying to justify your blind support of the party that actually WAS the party of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow, that was anti-Civil Rights, and is now pro-welfare/nanny state by blaming every wretched thing the Democrats actually did on the Republicans. You do nothing but the typical tactic of labeling differences of political opinion as 'racism' and 'pro-slavery' to suit a warped agenda. I'm sorry you have to jump through such hoops to defend the party that's historically treated blacks like crap and dump all their baggage onto Republicans in order to justify your blind allegiance.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

How does it negate the nonsense you've spouted? Because NONE of it has a thing to do with SLAVERY! blah blah blah

You go on to use the word slavery a total of 11 times in that post. Again, getting stuck on tree and refusing to see the forest. I'll just refer to a portion of what I said before. Something you obviously did not read, simply ignored, or perhaps it just went over your head.

Originally Posted by OAW

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture for a second. You are somewhat correct in a narrow sense that this trend is not about slavery per se. What you seem to be losing sight of ... intentionally or unintentionally ... despite overwhelming evidence to support it, is that the issue is race. The South was the region of the country that practiced slavery. The South was the region of the country that instituted Jim Crow and segregation afterwards. The South was the region of the country that most intensely resisted civil rights legislation after that. Notice a pattern here? The bottom line here is that the region of the country that has the strongest history of anti-black sentiment .... culturally, socially, economically, politically, and legislatively .... has gone from being solidly Democratic, when the party supported those sentiments, to Republican, when the Democratic party took steps against such sentiments.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

1968 Nixon DID NOT sweep the South! Wallace had nothing to do with Nixon- the man was a Democrat, he remained a Democrat, he was never a Republican nor had anything to do with the Republican party, he just didn't run as one in 1968. He's typical of most segregationist Democrats, the majority of whom remained Democrats.

Your reading comprehension skills are simply pitiful. The record clearly reflects that I never said Nixon swept the South. In fact, I explicitly stated that Nixon and Wallace split the South. Now while Wallace was never a Republican, he didn't run for president as a Democrat in 1968 why? The point is that the Democratic candidate lost the South in that election because the white electorate was abandoning the party due to its support for civil rights legislation. And the vote was split ... between Wallace who was an avowed segregationist and Nixon who's "Southern Strategy" was a thinly veiled appeal to the anti-black sentiments of the white electorate of the time. The fact of the matter is that both Nixon and Wallace ran a "Law and Order" campaign in the South. And in that region the expression was a well-known code phrase. As the article states ...

The expression was used frequently by southern politicians in the early 1960s in connection with civil rights protests by minorities and as an excuse to use physical force against them. Liberals would mock the southern accented way of saying it, "lawnawduh".

More on Nixon's Southern Strategy ... just in case it hasn't sunk in for you yet ....

Roots of the Southern Strategy

In the election of 1968, Richard Nixon saw the cracks in the Solid South as an opportunity to tap into a group of voters that had heretofore been beyond the reach of the Republican Party. The United States was undergoing a very turbulent period in 1968. The founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and most influential member of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. His death was followed by black rioting throughout the country. Martin Luther King’s policy of non-violence was being challenged by more radical blacks and by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. There were protests, often violent, against the Vietnam War. The drug subculture was causing alarm in many sectors. Nixon, with the aid of Harry Dent and then South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched to the Republican party in 1964, ran on a campaign of states' rights and "law and order". Many liberals accused Nixon of pandering to racist Southern whites, especially with regards to his "states' rights" stand.

As a result, every state that had been in the Confederacy, except Texas, voted for either Nixon or George Wallace (a Southern Democrat running as an independent), despite a strong tradition of supporting Democrats. Meanwhile, Nixon parlayed a wide perception as a moderate into wins in other states, taking a solid majority in the electoral college. He was able to appear this way to most Americans, because the strategy often consisted of code words that meant nothing to most Americans, but were emotionally charged for those in the south. Because of this result, the election of 1968 is sometimes cited as a realigning election, but such a belief also ignores the fact that the Democratic Party swept every Southern state except for Virginia in the Presidential election of 1976, after the last admitted advocates of the Southern Strategy had left positions of influence within the Republican Party. Others argue that the strong Democratic showing in the South in 1976 was the exception that proves the rule, and was directly influenced by the fallout of the Watergate scandal, in which Southerner Jimmy Carter defeated incumbent Ford and a disgraced Republican Administration.

Hmm. Let's see what one of the most renowned Republican political strategists of his time had to say about the Southern Strategy.

Bob Herbert , a well known liberal op-ed columnist, reported in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times of a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, President George H.W. Bush's campaign manger, in which he discusses politics in the South:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say 'nigger'-- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

But wait. Since you seem to think that the Southern Strategy argument is "stupid", as if it didn't exist ... let's see what present day Republican strategists have to say about it ....

Following the 2004 re-election of President George W. Bush, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee and Bush's campaign manager Ken Mehlman began an extensive tour to deliver speeches at meetings with African American business leaders, community and religious leaders, church meetings and some college students meets in states like Maryland and New Jersey. Mehlman apologized[4] for the Southern strategy, declaring that the Republican Party would never be complete or a majority party without receiving the support and confidence of the African American community. Mehlman is said to be building a cohensive effort to open the minds of African American voters to voting Republican, and working to combat stereotypes about the Republican Party that developed in the Civil Rights era and owing to the Southern strategy. Many prominent Republican and conservative commentators have denounced Mehlman for his apology, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity among them.

So anyway, continue to try to hang your hat on "slavery" and that one map if you want. I truly believe that most here can clearly see that the issue is the conservative ideology of the region and its associated anti-black sentiment. Slavery is just one particular manifestation of that sentiment that no longer exists. After it was ended the sentiment remained and merely transformed into less virulent forms. The fundamental point I'm making is that the region has effectively realigned its party affiliation on the national level as a result of the Democrats supporting civil rights issues ... much to the chagrin of the white Southern electorate. And the historical record reflects that reality.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

You go on to use the word slavery a total of 11 times in that post. Again, getting stuck on tree and refusing to see the forest. I'll just refer to a portion of what I said before. Something you obviously did not read, simply ignored, or perhaps it just went over your head.

You're like a five-year old at times. Completely incapable of following anything.
YOU posted a map of pre-civil war slave states and tried to draw some 'coincidence' with the 2004 election... and now here you are going "Dohhh.. slavery? What are you talking about slavery for?"

Good grief.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW

So anyway, continue to try to hang your hat on "slavery" and that one map if you want. I truly believe that most here can clearly see that the issue is the conservative ideology of the region and its associated anti-black sentiment.

If there is an anti-black sentiment, it's black on black.

[abe]

eBuddy,

I don't know how I did what I did but I managed to resize the map to save you the slings and arrows from those who'd complain about the image size. (It really IS annoying when an oversized image disrupts the whole thread.)

Map of Black Persons



U.S. Average = 12

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by OAW

Wow. Interesting little rant. Rather uninformed, but interesting nevertheless.

To cite a graph showing a lot of red states and few blue urban areas and then attempt to assert that the red constitutes a majority is well, uh .... pretty dense. The St. Louis metro area where I am from, which is certainly not a major metro area like Chicago or New York, has more population than the entire red states of North Dakota and South Dakota combined. So what happens when you throw New York, and L.A, and San Francisco, and Philadelphia in the mix? Need I remind you that Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore due to the vote in the blue urban areas? To confuse population density with geographic area is just plain ... you know, nevermind.

OAW

Unfortunately for your litttle attempt at belittlement, the Red majority (which you claim doesn't exist) elected the last president by a majority of the vote. You should truly stop harping on the 2000 race, it simply makes you look bitter. You needn't "remind" me of anything, since I just "reminded" you of the opposite.

The plain fact of the matter stands: There are very few liberal states and your Civil War comparison is exposed as the tin-hatted moonbat conspiracy theory it always was. If the point flew too far over your head, I'll try to use smaller words: The states you are claiming voted "anti-black" because they were slave states versus the states that voted "pro-black" ratio simply does NOT exist in the first place. Those votes are concentrated in the urban centers (hate to break it to you, but the rest of those states are NOT desolate, uninhabited wastelands). What you have managed to prove is MY point, that the largest number of Left-leaning, Liberal (big L) people live in the large urban centers of the country, where the greatest benefit from the welfare state is to be had.


Not to mention that the statistically largest percentage of "persons of color" who are presently in elected offices from the local to the national level is from the very states you claim "slaveholder bias."

That gurgling sound is your argument sinking.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by abe

eBuddy,

I don't know how I did what I did but I managed to resize the map to save you the slings and arrows from those who'd complain about the image size. (It really IS annoying when an oversized image disrupts the whole thread.)

I wanted to make sure you could "clearly see the regions of conservative ideology".

Thanx for the advice as always though.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You're like a five-year old at times. Completely incapable of following anything.
YOU posted a map of pre-civil war slave states and tried to draw some 'coincidence' with the 2004 election... and now here you are going "Dohhh.. slavery? What are you talking about slavery for?"

Good grief.

And then you go on to complete ignore the rest of my post. The reality is that I'm following you quite well. It's abundantly clear that you will focus on single piece of what I've said in this thread, and completely ignore all the other pieces. I think most are quite capable of seeing that to get a clear picture of what is being said you have to look at all the pieces to the puzzle. Unfortunately, that fact seems to escape you.

I'll mention this one last time and just leave it at that ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture for a second. You are somewhat correct in a narrow sense that this trend is not about slavery per se. What you seem to be losing sight of ... intentionally or unintentionally ... despite overwhelming evidence to support it, is that the issue is race. The South was the region of the country that practiced slavery. The South was the region of the country that instituted Jim Crow and segregation afterwards. The South was the region of the country that most intensely resisted civil rights legislation after that. Notice a pattern here? The bottom line here is that the region of the country that has the strongest history of anti-black sentiment .... culturally, socially, economically, politically, and legislatively .... has gone from being solidly Democratic, when the party supported those sentiments, to Republican, when the Democratic party took steps against such sentiments.

On second thought, let me break out the stick figures for you ....

Anti-black sentiment = puzzle
Slavery = 1 piece of the puzzle

- South votes solidly Democratic in national elections during slavery era.

- South votes solidly Democratic in national elections during Jim Crow/segregation era.

- South votes non-Democratic (Republican or American Independent) in a national election in 1968, the first one after the Democratic party embraced the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

- South votes solidly Republican in the post-civil rights era, with the notable exceptions being 1976 (Southern Democrat endorsed by a segregationist, Watergate scandal fallout) and 1992 and 1996 (Southern Democrat who only managed to split the South)

Am I saying that modern day Southerners vote Republican because they support slavery? Of course not! I never said any such thing. But the voting pattern of the South speaks for itself. When the Democratic party at the national level advocated anti-black policies, the South voted Democrat. When the Democratic party at the national level advocated civil rights legislation, the South voted for the other guy. Now is this the only reason why Southerners predominantly vote Republican today? Of course not. Having said that, clearly it is a factor ... the historical record simply can't be denied.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If there is an anti-black sentiment, it's black on black.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. It's "black on black" because African-Americans have a higher population density at the county level in the South? That doesn't even make sense. Historically, Jim Crow/segregation legislation was at its strongest in those regions of the country with sizable black populations. Even during the slavery era there where numerous Southern counties where black slaves outnumbered white people. Hence the infamous "three-fifths" provision for enumerating black people in the Constitution. And what does any of this have to do with voting patterns in the South? Are you implying that conservative voting patterns in the South are due to black voters? If so, consider this information regarding the 2004 presidential election ....

According to exit polls, 70 percent of whites in the south voted for Bush, while 90 percent of blacks voted for Kerry.

In the deep south states, the divide was even more pronounced. In Alabama, for instance, 80 percent of whites voted for Bush while 91 percent of blacks went for Kerry. The divide was less pronounced nationally, with 58 percent of whites voting for Bush and 88 percent of blacks voting Kerry.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Unfortunately for your litttle attempt at belittlement, the Red majority (which you claim doesn't exist) elected the last president by a majority of the vote. You should truly stop harping on the 2000 race, it simply makes you look bitter. You needn't "remind" me of anything, since I just "reminded" you of the opposite.

2000 Presidential Election

Gore - 48.4%
Bush - 47.9%
Nader - 2.7%

2004 Presidential Election

Kerry - 48.3%
Bush - 50.7%
Nader - 0.4%

Your so-called "red majority" doesn't exist. The last two elections clearly indicate that the country is essentially evenly divided. Neither the "red" or the "blue" can yet lay claim to a clear and sustainable majority.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The plain fact of the matter stands: There are very few liberal states ...

Again ... it bears repeating. "The St. Louis metro area where I am from, which is certainly not a major metro area like Chicago or New York, has more population than the entire red states of North Dakota and South Dakota combined."

So uh ... the fact that St. Louis is not a state is immaterial. The issue is not the ratio between "red states" vs "blue states". That designation currently goes to whichever candidate won the vote in that state .... winner take all ... even if he only won by a razor thin margin. Instead, the issue is the ratio between "red voters" vs "blue voters". And the last couple of presidential elections clearly shows that the ratio between them is just about even.

Which just happens to be what the graphs in the link you provided confirms. Specifically, take note of the maps that are population cartograms where the states/counties are resized according to their population.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

What you have managed to prove is MY point, that the largest number of Left-leaning, Liberal (big L) people live in the large urban centers of the country ...

It's amazing how much you misunderstand (or perhaps didn't fully read) your own source. Here's what the analysis contained therein had to say ...

"The answer seems to be that the amount of red on the map is skewed because there are a lot of counties in which only a slim majority voted Republican. One possible way to allow for this, suggested by Robert Vanderbei at Princeton University, is to use not just two colors on the map, red and blue, but instead to use red, blue, and shades of purple to indicate percentages of voters. Here is what the normal map looks like if you do this: map. And here's what the cartogram looks like: map. In this map, it appears that only a rather small area is taken up by true red counties, the rest being mostly shades of purple with patches of blue in the urban areas."

Originally Posted by Macrobat

....where the greatest benefit from the welfare state is to be had.

Statistics on welfare caseloads in "large urban centers" vs. "otherwise" seem to be next to impossible to come by. Have you had any success in that regard? If so, a link would be in order. Furthermore, statistics on welfare caseloads by "metropolitan area" vs. "non-metropolitan area" were rather difficult to locate, but I did manage this. Now according to the US Census Bureau, a "metropolitan area" is defined as an "area with a large core population (such as a city with a population of 50,000 or more) and adjacent communities with a high degree of social and economic integration with the core." A area with a population of 50,000 is hardly a "large urban center" as you put it .... the terms are definitely not synonymous. The smallest metropolitan area ... Columbia, SC ... in the top 100 US metropolitan areas has a population of approximately 537K. Nearly eleven times the minimum needed to be lumped in the "metropolitan area" category. So the welfare caseload statistics for "small to medium-sized cities" ... the ones that you seem to think are completely populated with people who are "expected to get a job and support yourself" and who are "not looking for a handout" ... would not be included in the "non-metropolitan area" category.

The data can be analyzed in a variety of ways, but unfortunately it doesn't break things down directly by "large urban centers" vs. "otherwise". What it does show is that the states with six-figure or more numbers of welfare caseloads (i.e., California, New York, Michigan, Texas, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) account for approximately 60% of the total caseloads. The remaining states account for the other 40%. Certainly not unexpected since that's where large populations reside. More people generally corresponds with more people who are poor. Everything depends on how one defines "large urban center". But by excluding small to medium-sized cities from this definition as you indicated earlier, one can infer from this data that your assertion that the "welfare state" hardly exists outside of those "large urban centers" is just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Not to mention that the statistically largest percentage of "persons of color" who are presently in elected offices from the local to the national level is from the very states you claim "slaveholder bias."

That gurgling sound is your argument sinking.

Well for one, I never used the term "slaveholder bias". And two, this is not the result of some dramatic change in attitude of the Southern white electorate towards black people. Rather, it is the result of high African-American population densities in many southern counties (as the graph that ebuddy provided indicates). Most black elected officials have historically come from districts with majority black populations.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW

I'm not sure what you are getting at. It's "black on black" because African-Americans have a higher population density at the county level in the South? That doesn't even make sense. Historically, Jim Crow/segregation legislation was at its strongest in those regions of the country with sizable black populations.

... and they're not slaves anymore. You (and potentially as many as 90% of southern blacks) have this philosophical idea to me that seems antiquated. Please tell me what Kerry or even his party has done for blacks? Truth be told OAW, they're not even trying. They know it. Of course both parties spew rhetoric in place of action, but at least the Republican party seems to be trying.

Even during the slavery era there where numerous Southern counties where black slaves outnumbered white people. Hence the infamous "three-fifths" provision for enumerating black people in the Constitution. And what does any of this have to do with voting patterns in the South? Are you implying that conservative voting patterns in the South are due to black voters? If so, consider this information regarding the 2004 presidential election ....
OAW

Of course I'm not trying to imply that blacks voted for Conservative ideology as noted earlier in this thread. I believe the left has duped, bamboozled, and hoodwinked a majority of blacks into demonizing the right. I believe there are many who claim to represent the black population who need to keep the black man hanging from the tree limb for personal gain, notariety, and affluence. I believe the party of the left needs to keep the black man on the plantation, at the back of the bus, and in separate seating at the restaraunt. I believe they need to keep him drinking from separate fountains all to perpetuate a slave mentality. I believe it's worked. How do I know? There seems to be no problem at all with an ex clansmen representing the left in Congress, but just let anyone from the right question reverse racism or anything remotely critical of a black man.

I'm just asking you to remember when you hear a white politician, democrat or republican talking about what they'd like to do for the minority; ask yourself what they've done for you lately and make sure they're not telling you to watch their right hand while their left hand is exploiting you for a vote. Like I said before, the worst liar is the magician.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Please tell me what Kerry or even his party has done for blacks? Truth be told OAW, they're not even trying. They know it. Of course both parties spew rhetoric in place of action, but at least the Republican party seems to be trying.

Perhaps blacks are not looking for politicians to do something for them, they're just looking at who shares their values.

I think everyone agrees that one of the key differences between conservative and liberal ideology is that conservatives are more tolerant of inequality than liberals. The fact that the Republican party is almost entirely (~90%) white, while the Democratic party is a coalition of a minority of whites plus everyone else, is due to the fact that whites and people in the upper classes want the status quo, and others aren't quite so happy with it. To the extent that liberals want change and conservatives want the status quo, and to the extent that liberals don't like inequality and conservatives don't mind it so much, is exactly the extent to which minority groups prefer Democrats.

What is it that the Republican party "seems to be trying" to "do for blacks," as you see it? Taxcutsfortherich? The war in Iraq? Handling disasters like Katrina? Privatizing social security? Making it a crime to aid illegal immigrants? Outing covert CIA agents? (OK, never mind that last one. )

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

On second thought, let me break out the stick figures for you ....

That’s pretty much the problem- your stick figure thinking, as opposed to any independent thought. This issue is just infinitely more complex than your simple black and white view of it, and your blaming Republicans for everything, and the outright ludicrous notion of Democrat= pro black, and Republican= anti-black.

The Civil Rights Acts began in the 1950’s, with the Republican Party, not the Democrat Party. The first Civil Rights Act of 1957 was drafted and passed by the Republican Party, with the Democrats- including Johnson and Kennedy- dragging their feet, either seeking to water it down, or outright trying to stop it.

The second Civil Rights Act was in 1960 under Eisenhower/Nixon. Again, drafted and passed by the Republican Party, opposed by the Democrats. Kennedy managed to be absent, and Johnson once more sought to water it down.

So here’s the map of the first presidential election after the era of Civil Rights Act legislation began:


As we all know, Kennedy was elected. By the SOUTH. (I’m sure slavery had something to do with it, right?)

We know Eisenhower/Nixon had started the ball rolling with the CRAs of 1957, and 1960. Where’s Kennedy’s acts? 1961? 1962? 1963? Hello?

No wonder he’s revered so much by modern do-nothing Democrats. He dangled the carrot and did nothing, even opposed/ went AWOL for the earlier acts, yet is given credit in many people’s minds for things he never did. Sort of a microcosm of the Democrat Party in general.

Clearly Nixon lost in 1960 because he had no strategy to take the south from the Democrats. Only an idiot would then conclude that he wouldn’t have a strategy to reverse that in 1968 when he ran again. IN your mind, it must be slavery related because there's an R in the name, but in reality it's called BOTH PARTIES WANT TO WIN elections and both need the south to do it! Certainly Nixon knew he did in 68. The south is part of the country. No Democrat has ever been elected without southern support- yet you have a convienient way to float a pass for Dems when they win the south, yet blame Republicans for slavery when they win.

Democrats have forever pulled a big hoodwink over this, and you’ve taken the bait with flying colors. When Kennedy courted and took the south in 1960, -after being against the 1957-60 acts because he was afraid it wouldn’t play to his base- you excuse it. He’s your party’s big Civil Rights icon- that never even passed or voted favorably for a bill. So goes the whitewash script you can’t waver from.

When Nixon formed a strategy to win in 1968- and then didn’t even win nearly as much of the south as Kennedy did- you want to shift gears and claim winning the south= racism, and even by your own silly start of this argument that you’re now backtracking from, support of slavery. Nixon’s record both before and after 1964 on Civil Rights is better BY FAR than most any Democrat’s, -certainly better than Kennedy’s- yet of course it’s all about racism to you because of the mismatched R and D labels so drilled into your head.

Once more, Wallace was a Democrat- he didn’t run as a Democrat in 1968, but he remained one. His taking much of the south in 1968 has nothing to do with the Republicans, though you have to try and make it so because there’s not a SINGLE example of any north/south Dem/Rep split during the civil rights era outside of your pretense.

You also don’t seem to understand that Johnson was LAMENTING the fact that the Democrats were going to lose the south- their BASE! It was because he was siding AGAINST his own party, in order to vote for the CRA of 1964- which was again passed with Republican support and Democrat opposition. Johnson thanked the Republicans for the passage of the bill, not his own party. And this is the same Johnson who opposed the earlier acts- but that fact of course goes out the window for your whitewashed history.

So many fantasies have come down since with Democrats seeking to shed their party’s true history, and dump their baggage onto Republicans, and you’ve repeated so many of them that it’s tiring correcting you.

The Dixiecrats did not become Republicans in 1948. They all went right back to the Democrat party that welcomed them. Even after 1964, the big myth is that the parties switched- and Republicans somehow became the Democrat segregationists. That’s just silly, and an example of the Democrat attempt at pawning off their baggage. A FEW of the segregationist Democrats joined the Republicans- Strom Thurman in 1964 (not 1948) being the main one. But the majority of Democrat segregationists stayed with the Democrat Party for the duration. The Republican Party didn’t join the segregationists; it was the other way around with a few joining them.

No segregationist who switched continued his old ways in the Republican Party. The Republican Party never has been the party of segregation, and it certainly didn’t become it after 1964. ALL of Strom’s segregationist antics were as a Democrat. As a Republican, he was actually quite pro-Civil Rights, and was re-elected time and time again, largely with the support of blacks in his home state.

No segregationist Democrat who stayed a Democrat (the majority) was ever punished by the Democrat Party. In fact, most were rewarded. The top leadership of the party was held by one of the worst, Robert Byrd from the 70’s nearly into the 90’s.

Republicans are supposed to take over the baggage of the Democrat Party and its role in ACTUAL segregation, because a few turncoats joined the party, not the other way around. Meanwhile, the Democrats never did a thing with their segregationist members, even promoted former KKK members the leadership of the party, and they get a free pass. Typical bas-ackward Democrat ‘logic’.

Your mythical North=blue state (Dem) and South= Red state (Rep) never existed in any form before 2000 (long after the passage of Civil Rights Acts were a factor), yet the direct opposite occurred in 1960 and 1976! (You of course HAVE to dismiss that, because it destroys your argument.) Most elections since 1964 were a sweep of the entire nation in favor of the Republicans, so if it’s racially based for the south, why isn’t it racially based for the whole country? What, you don’t count your little ‘anti-black’ sentiment nonsense when the ‘red states’ are mostly northern? How convenient for your black/white stick figure mentality.

The Republican Party isn’t innocent, but it does have a far better Civil Rights record than the Democrat Party does. I’ve never said blacks should blindly become Republicans- it’s silly to just blindly support either party. But it’s also silly to just blindly support the Democrats based on race- and even goofier to base it on a fantasy Democrat Party as champions of Civil Rights that never existed.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

We know Eisenhower/Nixon had started the ball rolling with the CRAs of 1957, and 1960. Where’s Kennedy’s acts? 1961? 1962? 1963? Hello?

No wonder he’s revered so much by modern do-nothing Democrats. He dangled the carrot and did nothing, even opposed/ went AWOL for the earlier acts, yet is given credit in many people’s minds for things he never did. Sort of a microcosm of the Democrat Party in general.

Man that's pretty unfair, considering that Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just a few months before he was assassinated.

You also don’t seem to understand that Johnson was LAMENTING the fact that the Democrats were going to lose the south- their BASE! It was because he was siding AGAINST his own party, in order to vote for the CRA of 1964- which was again passed with Republican support and Democrat opposition. Johnson thanked the Republicans for the passage of the bill, not his own party. And this is the same Johnson who opposed the earlier acts- but that fact of course goes out the window for your whitewashed history.

Hmm. The CRA of 1964 was passed overwhelmingly by both parties. A majority of both parties voted for it. Politicians in the South, Democrats and Republicans, voted against it. But more Democrats than Republicans voted for it. Almost twice as many Democratic Senators as Republican Senators voted for it. I don't know how you can say it was passed with Republican support and Democratic opposition.

Too bad zigzag isn't here, I always enjoyed reading your debates with him on this issue.

BTW, it's Democratic party, not Democrat party.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Man that's pretty unfair, considering that Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just a few months before he was assassinated.

"During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963."

Hmm. The CRA of 1964 was passed overwhelmingly by both parties. A majority of both parties voted for it. Politicians in the South, Democrats and Republicans, voted against it. But more Democrats than Republicans voted for it. Almost twice as many Democratic Senators as Republican Senators voted for it. I don't know how you can say it was passed with Republican support and Democratic opposition.

Democrats were the majority in congress, so of course they have more votes in favor- however, it's a simple fact that Republicans supported the act by a larger percentage, and therefore were the deciding factor. The bill simply could not have passed without Republican support. Johnson knew it when he thanked Republicans, and not his own party.

The party resoncible for the famous 24 hour filibusters in opposition? The Democrats.

I've never said any of this has to do with Republicans getting full credit for Civil Rights. NEITHER party deserves an over abundance of praise, but least of all the Democrats. As a majority, they could have pushed through their own Civil Rights legislation, but so many times they chose politics over doing the right thing. The facts remain- it was the minority party, the Republicans, who brought to the table, drafted and passed most of the CRA's even without controlling congress.

And I won't even get into the fact that it was mainly Republicans on the national courts (including the SCOTUS) who were key in enforcing Civil Rights legislation from the 1950's onward over the Democrats.

Too bad zigzag isn't here, I always enjoyed reading your debates with him on this issue.

Same here, I miss zigzag a lot. He brought a lot of wit and wisdom to the board.

BTW, it's Democratic party, not Democrat party.

Yeah but I hate typing that extra 'ic'.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Perhaps blacks are not looking for politicians to do something for them, they're just looking at who shares their values.

That's what I'm talking about. The left may be comprised of a more diverse constituency, but why would one assume our values are any different? By virtue of our skin color? Blacks do not believe in faith-based initiative? Hell, they're responsible for a great many of them. Want home ownership? Lower taxes? More prosperity through small business ownership?

I think everyone agrees that one of the key differences between conservative and liberal ideology is that conservatives are more tolerant of inequality than liberals. The fact that the Republican party is almost entirely (~90%) white, while the Democratic party is a coalition of a minority of whites plus everyone else, is due to the fact that whites and people in the upper classes want the status quo, and others aren't quite so happy with it.

No, see this is where I believe you're wrong. Conservatives are just as intolerant of inequality. They do not believe the way to render a people equal is to give them handouts. Anyone. They believe you empower people with a sense of self-fulfillment attained through achievement and that all are capable. They believe that if you continuously hand men fish, they will become dependant on the handout and not encouraged to learn how to fish for themselves. The difference in ideology often times is simply who is trying to buy your quick vote and who is trying to better your life. One way is easy, quick, and gets the vote. The other is an ideal or philosophy that does not focus on the color of one's skin.

To the extent that liberals want change and conservatives want the status quo, and to the extent that liberals don't like inequality and conservatives don't mind it so much, is exactly the extent to which minority groups prefer Democrats.

Again, I'm not sure what new and exciting policies have come from the left. Welfare? More social programs? Conversely, it seems the Conservatives have been the ones calling for change over status quo for at least the past 15 years. The liberals are the ones who seem to be touting status quo and tired policies from yester-year. Evidenced by their lack of success at the polls. I believe the liberal has become so sheltered from within their gated communities and Universities that they've been left to believe that values are not shared among human kind, but dependant upon skin color and culture. I believe their policies facilitate a dependancy class as a result.

What is it that the Republican party "seems to be trying" to "do for blacks," as you see it? Taxcutsfortherich?

Who employs people, the poor? Tax cuts for employers and employees you bet! Tax cuts for the rich also equated to tax cuts for the middle-earner and for the poor. BTW; with regard to wealth dissemination, who donates more to the poor, the poor? I'll remember everyone's concern for the little guy while we're talking about how good it is gas prices are soaring above $3/gallon. Are rich people driving the Delta 88s and the 1978 Cadillac Broughams?

The war in Iraq?

Per WASHINGTON POST-ABC NEWS poll conducted in March of 2003, 35% of blacks supported the Iraq war. A significant proportion of those who opposed it were Muslim blacks which account for a third of the Muslim population in the US. You might be surprised to know how truly torn on this issue they are just like whites. Upon talking to black people, you may be astonished how in favor of racial profiling they are at airport terminals for example, or how in favor of faith-based initiatives they are, school standards, how they feel about gay marriage, etc... At the end of the day, we're no diferent. Not at all. Really, you'd want it no other way in an equitable society.

Handling disasters like Katrina?

I live in the Midwest and most of the blacks I've talked to are just as astonished at the culture in New Orleans as the whites I've talked to. They have an equally difficult time wrapping their minds around why we're spending billions of dollars to rebuild a city below sea level. I don't let the vocal minority of blacks exploiting their brothers for notariety influence the way I view human kind. Colorless.

Privatizing social security?

You know how blacks feel about privatizing social security? I've heard more than a few indicate the current system discriminates against them because of life-expectancy. You've not heard this before? Lest you forget, the mantra of the Clinton Administration when Republicans were talking about tax cuts was; "fix Social Security!!!" Now, all of a sudden status quo is good enough. Their favorable attitude over Social Security status quo today has nothing to do with the minority and everything to do with mindless partisanship.

Making it a crime to aid illegal immigrants?

Making it a crime to aid illegal immigrants??? Any and every poll I can find shows remarkable similarity between whites and blacks on the immigration issue both racially and by party. Do you talk to black people very often?

Outing covert CIA agents? (OK, never mind that last one. )

Actually, the only thing I'd really want to do with this statement is to use it as an illustration of less concern over the minority and more concern over partisan rhetoric. Which is all I've really been trying to say.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

That’s pretty much the problem- your stick figure thinking, as opposed to any independent thought. This issue is just infinitely more complex than your simple black and white view of it, and your blaming Republicans for everything, and the outright ludicrous notion of Democrat= pro black, and Republican= anti-black.

Typical strawman argument. I never said "Democrat = pro black, and Republican = anti-black". That is some BS that you said. What I said was that Southern whites abandoned the Democratic party when it embraced serious and comprehensive civil rights legislation (specifically the CRA of 1964). This was political punishment being meted out by a faction of the Democratic party that felt it was betrayed. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic party at the time was the majority party. It had factions within it, much as it (and the Republicans) does today. The Democrats had northern and coastal liberals, as well as southern conservatives in its ranks. The Southern segregationists were just one faction, albeit a very powerful one, within the party.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The Civil Rights Acts began in the 1950’s, with the Republican Party, not the Democrat Party. The first Civil Rights Act of 1957 was drafted and passed by the Republican Party, with the Democrats- including Johnson and Kennedy- dragging their feet, either seeking to water it down, or outright trying to stop it.

The second Civil Rights Act was in 1960 under Eisenhower/Nixon. Again, drafted and passed by the Republican Party, opposed by the Democrats. Kennedy managed to be absent, and Johnson once more sought to water it down.

Basically true ... yet very misleading. It is true that Eisenhower called for civil rights legislation, however, presidents don't introduce legislation. Congressional members do. It was Johnson, as Senate majority leader, who did that. It is true that Johnson watered the bill down. However, your words give the impression that he didn't support the goals of the legislation when the reality is that watering it down was the only way it could pass over the objections of Southern senators. One has to remember that Southern senators had filibustered or threatened to filibuster all civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. Johnson was concerned that this legislation could split the Democratic party ... as Truman's executive orders integrating the military had almost done. So all the "teeth" were pulled out the bill, rendering them weak and ineffective (no new black voters were registered in the South between 1957-59) ... but passable. More from the Senate website ...

For Johnson, civil rights loomed as the most intractable legislative problem of the decade. The Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, ordering an end to segregated schools, had outraged Southern senators. They circulated a Southern Manifesto urging massive resistance to school integration, but Johnson declined to sign it. In 1957 President Eisenhower proposed a tough civil rights bill that Southerners adamantly resisted. Johnson recognized the symbolic value of enacting the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction, but he feared that a protracted filibuster would split his party. His removal of the key enforcement provisions of the law steered it through to enactment. Not until 1964, when Johnson was president, would a strong civil rights act finally win passage.

And another source from The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow documentary ....

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced and strongly supported by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX), in spite of a filibuster led by Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC, who switched to R-SC in 1964), during which Thurmond spoke for a Senate record of 24 hours 18 minutes. Senator Johnson (and President Eisenhower) was more concerned with garnering the support of his colleagues than with affecting true change in the lives of black Americans in the south, so the Civil Rights Act was intentionally watered down so as not to alienate and anger Southern Democrats. In its final form, the bill simply created a Commission on Civil Rights, but did not affect Jim Crow.

Furthermore, your assertion that the Republican party passed this legislation is again inaccurate. I was unable to locate the actual vote count for the the CRA of 1957, but let's examine the party divisions of the 85th Congress ...

House - 234 Democrats, 201 Republicans
Senate - 49 Democrats, 47 Republicans

Simple mathematics says that the Republicans, as the minority party, couldn't pass legislation without some Democratic support. Again, I couldn't locate the actual vote count. But if the vote count for the CRA of 1964 is a guide, then there was likely bi-partisan support for the legislation. Even the Southern senators, Strom Thurmond being a notable exception, voted for it once all the real enforcement provisions were removed.

Finally, you seem to stuck on this notion that I think that the Republicans have always been anti-civil rights legislation. Again, that simply isn't the case. In fact, I've said in this thread on more than one occasion that African-Americans were predominantly Republicans from after the Civil War until the passage of the CRA of 1964. This was because at the time the Republicans supported their interests more than the Democrats (influenced greatly by the Southern conservative faction) did. The CRA of 1964 (and the Voting Rights Act of 1965) changed all that. The Southern white conservatives jumped ship and went Republican. Not because the Republican party advocated segregation ... I never said that ... but because they were punishing the Democrats. If you ever decide to get a clue and actually deal with what I said instead of your own mischaracterization of what I said, you will see that the issue is not the Republican party per se ... but rather, white conservatism. Black people didn't catch hell from the Republican party during Jim Crow ... they caught hell from white conservatives. It just so happened that those white conservatives were Democrats. The reality is that the degree to which the Republican party .... in its modern incarnation ... caters to white conservatives is the degree to which black people will avoid it like the plague. And you can best believe that if the Democratic party went on an all out campaign to get white conservatives back on their side of the aisle and succeeded, the vast majority of black people will return to the party of their ancestors ... the Republicans.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Democrats have forever pulled a big hoodwink over this, and you’ve taken the bait with flying colors. When Kennedy courted and took the south in 1960, -after being against the 1957-60 acts because he was afraid it wouldn’t play to his base- you excuse it. He’s your party’s big Civil Rights icon- that never even passed or voted favorably for a bill. So goes the whitewash script you can’t waver from.

I've never once mentioned Kennedy in this entire thread. To praise him or to criticize him or to "excuse" him. Now you are just talking to yourself.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

When Nixon formed a strategy to win in 1968- and then didn’t even win nearly as much of the south as Kennedy did- you want to shift gears and claim winning the south= racism, and even by your own silly start of this argument that you’re now backtracking from, support of slavery. Nixon’s record both before and after 1964 on Civil Rights is better BY FAR than most any Democrat’s, -certainly better than Kennedy’s- yet of course it’s all about racism to you because of the mismatched R and D labels so drilled into your head.

No. I'm not "backtracking". I just never said what you said I said. I said ... quite explicitly ... on more than one occasion ... that the issue was race. You, and a few others, who don't read very well ... or perhaps just "hear what you want to hear" keep saying that I said the issue was slavery. Racism can take many forms. Slavery was just one manifestation. Lynchings were another. Jim Crow/segregation was another. Opposition to civil rights legislation and integration was yet another.

So pay attention here ...

There were many, if not most, Southern whites at the time who weren't for reintroducing slavery but would have had a hissy fit if a black person sat next to them on a bus! There were many Southern whites who would not want to see a black person lynched but would be quite upset if a black person moved in next door (as many still do to this day). With the introduction of the Southern Strategy, the Republican party decided to WIN ELECTIONS as you put it by capitalizing on the racial hostilities of the Southern white electorate. And guess what? Had you been paying attention you would realize that I clearly recognize that prior to the CRA of 1964 the Democrats did too.

And as for Nixon's civil rights record, you are right ... it is much better than Kennedy's. Definitely not better than Johnson's considering how he was the one who signed the legislation that actually mattered and made substantive change. But Nixon had a good record on civil rights. In fact, he was the one that started the Affirmative Action program that conservatives love to bitch about so much these days. Go figure.

So again, you are just talking to yourself. Arguing points that are not in dispute. Much like my ex-wife has a habit of doing.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Once more, Wallace was a Democrat- he didn’t run as a Democrat in 1968, but he remained one. His taking much of the south in 1968 has nothing to do with the Republicans, though you have to try and make it so because there’s not a SINGLE example of any north/south Dem/Rep split during the civil rights era outside of your pretense.

Jeez ... you just really don't listen. Were you asleep during Reading Comprehension 101? I mean seriously. Show me where I ever said that Wallace taking much of the south in 1968 had something to do with the Republicans. Provide the quote please. I said, quite explicitly, that Wallace took much of the South in 1968 because Southern white voters were pissed at the Democrats about the CRA of 1964 (and the VRA of 1965). So produce the quote or get off it already.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You also don’t seem to understand that Johnson was LAMENTING the fact that the Democrats were going to lose the south- their BASE! It was because he was siding AGAINST his own party, in order to vote for the CRA of 1964- which was again passed with Republican support and Democrat opposition. Johnson thanked the Republicans for the passage of the bill, not his own party. And this is the same Johnson who opposed the earlier acts- but that fact of course goes out the window for your whitewashed history.

Well see now you are just being completely full of sh*t. To suggest that the CRA of 1964 passed with "Democratic opposition" just doesn't coincide with the facts. The vote statistics are as follows:

Vote totals

The Original House Version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate Version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By Party

The Original House Version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate Version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate Version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By Party and Region

The Original House Version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate Version:
Southern Democrats: 1-21 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 46-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Notwithstanding the total Senate vote counts which seem a bit odd, what these stats clearly show is that Democrats had nearly 2-to-1 support for this legislation! Hardly what I would call "Democratic opposition". Furthermore, this information shows that the divide was not between Republicans and Democrats, but rather between Northerners and Southerners! Party affiliation was not the determining factor here. Not a single Southern Republican ... house or senate ... voted for this legislation. And only 8 Southern Democrats ... house or senate ... voted for this legislation. Which just goes to support my contention ... that I've consistently maintained all along ... which is that the issue is the attitudes of Southern white conservatives.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So many fantasies have come down since with Democrats seeking to shed their party’s true history, and dump their baggage onto Republicans, and you’ve repeated so many of them that it’s tiring correcting you.

Uh. Yeah right.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The Dixiecrats did not become Republicans in 1948. They all went right back to the Democrat party that welcomed them.

Never said that they did. I said that they became Republicans after the Dixiecrat party disbanded. But I can see how the way that particular post was structured could leave you with the impression that I meant 1948. Had I said "eventually became Republicans" it would have been clearer. Having said that, there were other posts where I explicitly said that Strom Thurmond became a Republican in 1964 ... so had you read that perhaps you would have realized that your subsequent attempt to "correct" me about Thurmond was not necessary.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Even after 1964, the big myth is that the parties switched- and Republicans somehow became the Democrat segregationists. That’s just silly, and an example of the Democrat attempt at pawning off their baggage. A FEW of the segregationist Democrats joined the Republicans- Strom Thurman in 1964 (not 1948) being the main one. But the majority of Democrat segregationists stayed with the Democrat Party for the duration. The Republican Party didn’t join the segregationists; it was the other way around with a few joining them.

A big myth huh? The issue isn't what a a few segregationist politicians did, but rather, what the overwhelming majority of segregationist voters did.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

No segregationist Democrat who stayed a Democrat (the majority) was ever punished by the Democrat Party. In fact, most were rewarded. The top leadership of the party was held by one of the worst, Robert Byrd from the 70’s nearly into the 90’s.

Regarding Sen. Byrd, seniority has its benefits it seems. But your point would be what? I've said time and again that the issue is the attitudes and policies of Southern white conservatives ... and Byrd clearly is one. Do you think that because he is a Democrat African-Americans agree with his politics? A former (supposedly) KKK member? Get real!

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Most elections since 1964 were a sweep of the entire nation in favor of the Republicans, so if it’s racially based for the south, why isn’t it racially based for the whole country? What, you don’t count your little ‘anti-black’ sentiment nonsense when the ‘red states’ are mostly northern? How convenient for your black/white stick figure mentality.

The North has always been at play for Republicans. Prior to introduction of the Southern Strategy, that was the only place they had any real traction. The South only had a handful of Republican congress members. And the Republican party at that time was not dominated by conservatives either. The South, OTOH, was a stronghold of the Democratic party. Primarily out of resentment to the Republican led "yankees" during the Civil War ... and the Republican controlled Reconstruction efforts. It was called the "Solid South" for a reason. Republicans got no love in the South ... and then all of a sudden they did. The question is .... why? If you wish to delude yourself into thinking that the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954, the CRA of 1964, the VRA of 1965, and the CRA of 1968 didn't have anything to do with it ... then go right ahead.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The Republican Party isn’t innocent, but it does have a far better Civil Rights record than the Democrat Party does. I’ve never said blacks should blindly become Republicans- it’s silly to just blindly support either party. But it’s also silly to just blindly support the Democrats based on race- and even goofier to base it on a fantasy Democrat Party as champions of Civil Rights that never existed.

Again you go and argue with yourself about things I never said. The one stuck on party affiliation is you! Were you not paying attention when I said that party affiliation and political ideology are not necessarily the same thing? Haven't I explicitly said the issue is that the conservative political ideology has a long history of supporting policies that are hostile to black people? True ... the Republican party during the time of Reconstruction through the 1960s supported civil rights legislation. But you seem to gloss over the fact that the Republican party wasn't controlled by conservatives at that time. Many were moderate ... and some were even liberals. The Republican party gets no love anymore from the black community because it is controlled by, and advocates the policies of white conservatives. If the "Rockefeller" Republicans were to make a resurgence within the party (are there any left?) I imagine things would change. It's not as if African-Americans are crazy about the Democrats. Most black people who follow politics will tell you that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the "lesser of two evils". A vote for the one who claims to support your interests, sometimes does, but often times just takes you for granted and blows you off .... as opposed to a vote for the one who ignores your interests at best or is openly hostile to your interests at worst.

Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS ... the infamous town where three civil rights workers were killed ... and telling the nearly all, if not completely white crowd that he supported "state's rights" just wasn't going to endear him (and by extension the party that he leads) to African-American people. If you don't understand why by now, you quite simply never will.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Upon talking to black people, you may be astonished how in favor of racial profiling they are at airport terminals for example, or how in favor of faith-based initiatives they are, school standards, how they feel about gay marriage, etc... At the end of the day, we're no diferent. Not at all. Really, you'd want it no other way in an equitable society.

Regarding faith-based initiatives, while it is true that many blacks agree with the idea of paper ... most who are in the know realize that thus far not many black churches have been able to tap into those funds. The reality is that this program is more about the GOP rewarding the religious right (white evangelical Christians) for its political support, and is now gradually being used to court some of the larger black "mega-churches" as well in an attempt to garner more political support among blacks. Blacks support the idea of school vouchers at about the same rate as the general population. And blacks are more likely than whites to oppose gay marriage. Many are even anti-abortion. This is all true.

So why don't more blacks vote for Republicans?

You have to understand that the "hot button" issues in the black community are not the same as the ones for white conservatives. From the article I cited earlier ....

One of the reasons more blacks don't vote Republican, some analysts say, is that when it comes to "values," many black voters remain convinced that the GOP is less moral than the Democratic party on social and economic justice issues. Those issues -- from tax cuts, to school funding, to affirmative action -- combined with the general feeling that Republicans are hostile to the interests of African Americans, outweigh the social values the two groups may share.

Democratic pollster Ron Lester, who is black, said that the black electorate is more religious and more conservative than the black population as a whole, with as many as 80 percent of black voters identifying themselves as church-goers.

"I think there is a lot of compatibility and similarity between a lot of the positions that black folks take in terms of social issues and issues advocated by the Republicans," Lester said. "But it hasn't translated into political gains for the Republican Party because they are viewed as being out of touch with the black community on many levels. And they are viewed as having a real mean-spiritedness about them. Remember back in the 1980s when they were cutting school lunches and child immunizations? And it continues today with the Patriot Act and racial profiling and just a general disconnect."

Issues of racial justice and equality also keep blacks and Republicans from connecting with one another, despite the shared social values, said D'Linell Finley, a political science professor at Auburn University-Montgomery.

"If you look at the Republican economic agenda and most of their policies in regard to racial issues or minority issues as they relate to blacks in particular, Republican's will support the kind of economic and financial programs that work against blacks," Finley said.

......

Some prominent Democrats such as Donna Brazile have warned that blacks are growing increasingly disenchanted with the party because they feel their votes are being taken for granted. But others, including the Joint Center's David Bositis, argue that the vast majority of blacks don't see the GOP as a viable alternative.

Personally, I prefer divided government. In the time since I've been voting it seems that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President has worked out best. I've even voted that way ... for all those who assume that I blindly support the Democratic party. When one party controls everything, they just can't seem to resist the temptation to run off the deep end. I mean we have deficits out the wazoo and you have Republicans running around talking about sending out millions of $100 tax rebates because of the high gas prices. WTF?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW

Regarding faith-based initiatives, while it is true that many blacks agree with the idea of paper ... most who are in the know realize that thus far not many black churches have been able to tap into those funds. The reality is that this program is more about the GOP rewarding the religious right (white evangelical Christians) for its political support, and is now gradually being used to court some of the larger black "mega-churches" as well in an attempt to garner more political support among blacks. Blacks support the idea of school vouchers at about the same rate as the general population. And blacks are more likely than whites to oppose gay marriage. Many are even anti-abortion. This is all true.

So why don't more blacks vote for Republicans?

Summarized from below; it is amazing that the voting sect of blacks favor Republican idealism, but view the Republicans as mean-spirited because of school lunch and child immunization cut backs and programs that were viewed as hostile to them in the 80's??? Aside from the entirely debunked notion that this is what actually transpired in the 80's (it was nothing more than a slight decrease in annual increase), I'm starting to agree with Crash Harddrive, why even try?

You have to understand that the "hot button" issues in the black community are not the same as the ones for white conservatives. From the article I cited earlier ....

In you view OAW, what could the average Republican do to reach out to the black community?

Personally, I prefer divided government. In the time since I've been voting it seems that a Republican Congress and a Democratic President has worked out best.

I agree with the checks and balances our system affords us when there is opposing representation. However, one can also argue that more time is spent arguing about policy than exacting any real change. Bush has shown that no matter how liberal your policies become as a Republican, you'll still not get the black vote. They need to quit trying to appease and get on about the business of being the evil tax cutters.

I've even voted that way ...

I vote for the candidates who I believe will do the best job in office regardless of their party affiliation. I do not however go and vote for a couple of democrats to even the score. I vote for the best representation, period.

for all those who assume that I blindly support the Democratic party. When one party controls everything, they just can't seem to resist the temptation to run off the deep end. I mean we have deficits out the wazoo and you have Republicans running around talking about sending out millions of $100 tax rebates because of the high gas prices. WTF?

I'd be interested in seeing a link to this "$100 rebate" OAW. Much like the Patriot Act much of the left complains about, I'd be willing to bet it was drafted by a Democrat. That said, we've got a lot of people complaining about Oil profiteering. I've got an idea. How about posting the price of gas before tax, then beside it posting the price of gas after the taxes both Federal and State? The profit percentage Oil Companies attained from gas sales is actually comparably quite low, but some headway might be gained by breaking these mega-corps down a little. It still does not eliminate the 20% taxes paid into each gallon. There is a sect looking out for the minority unfortunately their idea of minority is the carribou in Alaska.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW

What I said was that Southern whites abandoned the Democratic party when it embraced serious and comprehensive civil rights legislation (specifically the CRA of 1964).

And you’re wrong about this. Southern whites did not abandon the Democratic Party. State legislatures, Governorships, and congress all remained predominantly Democrat in the south. A Republican dominated south didn’t occur until the 1990’s when Republicans took over congress, and this was long after the civil rights era. As I’ve pointed out- even the presidency- Carter and Clinton both had support from southern voters.

The bottom line: 1976 and the 1990s when southern states voted for Dems had nothing to do with your original slavery “coincidence” comment, and certainly 2000 and 2004 didn’t either when it was a Republican.

It is true that Eisenhower called for civil rights legislation, however, presidents don't introduce legislation. Congressional members do. It was Johnson, as Senate majority leader, who did that.

You’re really splitting hairs to come up with this. Funny, you give Johnson credit- as president- for the 1964 Act, yet here try and say Eisenhower deserves less credit in ’57 and ‘60. Excuse me, but how convenient.

The ’57 Act was introduced by Eisenhower’s Attorney General. Yes, of course technically the Majority Leader ‘introduced’ the legislation in congress, but come on. Johnson treated the whole idea like a hot potato. Republicans introduced the acts, drafted them, and supported it in larger percentages than Democrats. Kennedy, for example, (and not a southerner) voted against it.

It is true that Johnson watered the bill down. However, your words give the impression that he didn't support the goals of the legislation when the reality is that watering it down was the only way it could pass over the objections of Southern senators.

Nice try, but wrong. Just as with 1964, the bill could have passed, (with Republican support, just as in 1964) and Johnson didn’t need to water it down. He was playing to his base, just as Kennedy did by voting against it. Again, Democrats picking political gain first, Civil Rights last. Johnson would have been lamenting losing the south in 1960 had he done the right thing in 1957 and 1960. Why make excuses for it? It’s a fact.

Furthermore, your assertion that the Republican party passed this legislation is again inaccurate. I was unable to locate the actual vote count for the the CRA of 1957, but let's examine the party divisions of the 85th Congress ...

House - 234 Democrats, 201 Republicans
Senate - 49 Democrats, 47 Republicans

Simple mathematics says that the Republicans, as the minority party, couldn't pass legislation without some Democratic support.

You’re just purposefully being obtuse now. The Democrats alone could not have passed Civil Rights legislation, nor did they drive the issue or have the political will. Republicans not only introduced, pushed and drafted the bills, but their larger percentages of support made their passage possible. No congressional Republicans- no Civil Rights Acts. That doesn’t mean that there was no Democratic support of course- merely that it was Republican support that tipped the scale.
I’ve pointed out this fact before, but it bears repeating now:
“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.”

And you can best believe that if the Democratic party went on an all out campaign to get white conservatives back on their side of the aisle and succeeded, the vast majority of black people will return to the party of their ancestors ... the Republicans.

This is just sad. So never mind what the Democrats did, or would do to support or appeal to blacks, you’d ‘punish’ them if they dared to try for ‘white conservative’ support. This seems to be the crux of the matter right here. You’re more concerned with a bias against ‘white conservatives’ and being in ANY other party- no matter how foul- than concerned with whom truly did or will do anything for blacks. Symbolism over substance.

You, and a few others, who don't read very well ... or perhaps just "hear what you want to hear" keep saying that I said the issue was slavery. Racism can take many forms. Slavery was just one manifestation. Lynchings were another. Jim Crow/segregation was another. Opposition to civil rights legislation and integration was yet another.

And again I’ll remind you- you started this with a map of slave states, and tried to draw a coincidence with 2004. There is none. You’ve consistently excused Democrats who played politics with the lives of blacks during the ACTUAL Jim Crow era- yet are pissed at Republicans for symbolic long-after-the-fact nonsense that’s never led to any return to Jim Crow, let alone slavery.

I think this is again the crux of the matter. I believe people like you are more interested in symbolism than substance and reality.

With the introduction of the Southern Strategy, the Republican party decided to WIN ELECTIONS as you put it by capitalizing on the racial hostilities of the Southern white electorate. And guess what? Had you been paying attention you would realize that I clearly recognize that prior to the CRA of 1964 the Democrats did too.

You started off with a silly comparison pre Civil War to 2004. Yet dismiss 1976 and the 1990’s when the Dems won southern states. Every time a Republican has a ‘southern strategy’ in your mind it’s racism, yet when a Democrat does, there’s an excuse. It just doesn’t wash.

And as for Nixon's civil rights record, you are right ... it is much better than Kennedy's. Definitely not better than Johnson's considering how he was the one who signed the legislation that actually mattered and made substantive change. But Nixon had a good record on civil rights. In fact, he was the one that started the Affirmative Action program that conservatives love to bitch about so much these days. Go figure.

Classic symbolism over substance. So here it is in a nutshell.

You’re more worried about Nixon’s election campaign rhetoric of 1968- than the REALITY of the man’s presidency!!

This is what’s so incredibly baffling about your whole position. (and not just you, but people like you.) I do have to give you credit though- at least you do actually know and acknowledge that Nixon’s civil rights record is good, and in fact better than most Democrats. Also, I’d say it’s better than Johnson’s as well, because to my knowledge, Nixon never stalled or watered down civil rights legislation and let blacks twist for seven years before finally being willing to cross party lines to do the right thing.

Show me where I ever said that Wallace taking much of the south in 1968 had something to do with the Republicans.

Oh please. You’ve repeatedly tried to tie Wallace to Nixon and the Republicans in 1968 by bringing them up as though related. The fact remains, Nixon’s ‘southern strategy’ did not win the entire south for the Republicans in 1968- bottom line.

Well see now you are just being completely full of sh*t. To suggest that the CRA of 1964 passed with "Democratic opposition" just doesn't coincide with the facts. The vote statistics are as follows:

Hardly what I would call "Democratic opposition".

Talk about full of ****. You know damned well what Democratic opposition the CRAs faced. And yes, all of it came from the Democratic side. The fact that you’ve already tried to excuse Johnson’s role in watering down the ’57 and ’60 acts in the face of it, proves you know this. Every filibuster and every attempt to water down and stop the CRAs- all of them- was from the Democratic side. It’s not just southerners either- as I pointed out, even JFK’s only vote on CRA legislation was in the negative.

Never said that they did. I said that they became Republicans after the Dixiecrat party disbanded.

Which in the overwhelming majority of cases, isn’t even true.

A big myth huh? The issue isn't what a a few segregationist politicians did, but rather, what the overwhelming majority of segregationist voters did.

Yes, remained Democrats- at the state legislature level, at the gubernatorial level, at the congressional level, and as far as 1976 (segregation wasn’t an issue by then) electing Democrats to the white house.

Regarding Sen. Byrd, seniority has its benefits it seems. But your point would be what? I've said time and again that the issue is the attitudes and policies of Southern white conservatives ... and Byrd clearly is one. Do you think that because he is a Democrat African-Americans agree with his politics? A former (supposedly) KKK member? Get real!

Didn’t you just get through ranting about how if the Dems were supportive of white conservatives you’d see blacks jumping ship for the Republican Party? Well, I hate to inform you, but you’ve been stumping for the party that actually KEPT most of the segregationists, and even promoted one of the worst offenders to the LEADERSHIP of the party. THAT’S the point. Of course you knew that- but it’s another of those annoying little fact that doesn’t fly with your re-write of the party’s history, and of your emphasis on symbolic bullcrap over actual substance.

If you wish to delude yourself into thinking that the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954, the CRA of 1964, the VRA of 1965, and the CRA of 1968 didn't have anything to do with it ... then go right ahead.

Every single thing you just listed was supported by a larger majority of Republicans than Democrats. Brown vs. the Board of Education was specifically the work of Republicans on the court in opposition to Democrats on the court.

But you seem to gloss over the fact that the Republican party wasn't controlled by conservatives at that time. Many were moderate ... and some were even liberals. The Republican party gets no love anymore from the black community because it is controlled by, and advocates the policies of white conservatives.

And again, this then is just silly symbolic ‘reasoning’ based on a really narrow view of ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’. You know as well as I do that the terms don’t remain static. Those same ‘liberal and moderate’ Reps of the 1950’s would today be viewed as beyond ULTRA-conservative, whereas most conservatives of today would then have been viewed as moderate to liberal. So you’re basing your hatred of ‘white conservatives’ on a false viewpoint, without realizing (or trying to purposefully misconstrue) that the conservatism of the Republican Party today has nothing to do with the Democrat conservatism that favored segregation and Jim Crow. And of course, it’s logical. The Republican Party never did have a thing to do with segregation or Jim Crow- not during the era when it was going on, and not after.

It's not as if African-Americans are crazy about the Democrats. Most black people who follow politics will tell you that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the "lesser of two evils". A vote for the one who claims to support your interests, sometimes does, but often times just takes you for granted and blows you off .... as opposed to a vote for the one who ignores your interests at best or is openly hostile to your interests at worst.

Again, back to the crux of the matter- you’d rather vote for a party that plays to symbolic bullshit, but that “blows you off and takes you for granted” rather than make either party compete for your vote. You’re right in that the Republicans don’t cater to blacks- they don’t HAVE to. Blacks have made it pretty clear they’re a shoe-in for the party that takes them for granted- so NEITHER party has to give much of a crap about them.

I’m personally not saying that blacks should go over to the Republicans- but at least maybe more should consider that just blindly giving the Democrats 90% support does little if anything good for them. Heck, if the Dems suck so bad also- why aren’t more blacks Independants, Greens, or whatever else? If blacks went in droves to a third party- both Dems and Reps would lose their minds and scramble to appeal to them. As it is, neither party has to do jack squat to empower blacks. That said- it’s a great irony that actually the Republican record stacks up better than the Democrats- on everything but symbolic bullshit. But hey, some people prefer that.

Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS ... the infamous town where three civil rights workers were killed ... and telling the nearly all, if not completely white crowd that he supported "state's rights" just wasn't going to endear him (and by extension the party that he leads) to African-American people. If you don't understand why by now, you quite simply never will.

Once again, more symbolic bullshit- and a CLASSIC example. This is one of those ‘factoids’ that bitterleftwingkook.org sites love to spout endlessly as their great example of how evil Republicans are. More campaign bullshit- yet you can’t point to anything Reagan actually DID to bring back any Jim Crow bullcrap.

First of all- this was a speech at a county fair that politicians of all stripe had been appearing at for decades. Heck, Michael Dukakis of all people made a speech at the same fair also. What the leftwing kook blogs also ALWAYS leave out, is that the very next day Reagan made a speech in New York to the Urban League where he said: "I am committed to the protection of the civil rights of black Americans. That commitment is interwoven into every phase of the programs I will propose."

But of course, it’s easier to keep the whitewash going and try and portray Reagan as an evil, awful racist because of some campaign speech (symbolic) over anything he actually did as President (reality). Symbolism over substance.

Was it a politically incorrect thing for Reagan to make a state’s rights speech in Mississippi? Perhaps. But in reality, it’s more about a fundamental difference in the way Republicans view the constitution and the way liberal Democrats do. Republicans tend to believe that powers not specifically granted to the Federal Govt by the constitution belong to the states. Democrats believe that when a power is not specifically granted to the Federal Govt by the constitution, they can just pretend it is anyway, shout down anyone who points out it isn’t- and hijack that power as part of an ever-expanding Federal Govt. Reagan ran on a platform all over the country (of which, like it or not, the south is part of) of returning more power to the states and lessening Federal Govt. power grabs. The results are pretty clear. He won pretty handily in 1980. If your mythical non-conservative north vs. evil white conservative south hadn’t liked the results of 1980, or was really worried about any return to Jim Crow, perhaps they’d have gone for something different in 1984. Or 1988.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In you view OAW, what could the average Republican do to reach out to the black community?

1. Become the "Party of Lincoln" again in more than name only. Allow "moderate" and even "liberal" Republicans to have a serious voice and stake in the party. IOW, don't just cater to conservatives and the religious right.

2. Lay off the anti-Affirmative Action rhetoric. Considering how negligible its impact is on the daily lives of the average white person the constant rhetoric against it is perceived as being "anti-black" as opposed to "pro-fairness". And let's not get into the whole "but I didn't get admitted to the college of my choice and some black person got in with a lower test score" nonsense. Those who go there have complete tunnel vision, and completely ignore the dozens of other white students who were admitted over them with a lower score. But that's the kind of foolishness the Republican party likes to tap into.

3. Understand that most black people are more concerned with day to day economic and social justice issues. Constantly harping about abortion and gay marriage and school prayer is not going to do it ... even though many agree. White evangelical Christians may get all worked up into a frenzy over those things, but most blacks are more concerned about pocketbook and fairness issues.

4. Get it through their thick skulls that insulting the intelligence of the black community for voting overwhelming Democratic is not conducive to garnering its support. Especially in light of the clear and undeniable hostility that conservatives have shown to black people throughout the last century.

5. Understand that health care is a major issue. 41% of working age, middle class Americans with no health insurance for at least part of the year is no joke. Republicans need to be seen as being on the side of the insured/uninsured and not the insurance company. Just in general if they were seen as being on the side of the individual instead of the corporation (who generally have enough money to look out for their own interests) they would be more attractive.

6. Realize that the solution to every problem is not necessarily a tax cut.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I'd be interested in seeing a link to this "$100 rebate" OAW. Much like the Patriot Act much of the left complains about, I'd be willing to bet it was drafted by a Democrat. That said, we've got a lot of people complaining about Oil profiteering. I've got an idea. How about posting the price of gas before tax, then beside it posting the price of gas after the taxes both Federal and State? The profit percentage Oil Companies attained from gas sales is actually comparably quite low, but some headway might be gained by breaking these mega-corps down a little. It still does not eliminate the 20% taxes paid into each gallon. There is a sect looking out for the minority unfortunately their idea of minority is the carribou in Alaska.

Link

OAW

[Gee-Man]

4. Get it through their thick skulls that insulting the intelligence of the black community for voting overwhelming Democratic is not conducive to garnering its support. Especially in light of the clear and undeniable hostility that conservatives have shown to black people throughout the last century.

Repeated for emphasis. Replying to some conservatives in this thread is like beating your head against the wall - but this is the one point that should be repeated over and over. There's nothing more insulting than the incessant wailing of certain white conservatives trying to convince me that I'm too stupid and/or naive to "know my own interests" after I've chosen my vote carefully and deliberately.

Ironically, many of these same people get all indignant when some Democrats do the flip side of that same behavior, which is to tell rural white voters that they are "voting against their own interests" when they vote overwhelmingly Republican.

It's highly insulting whoever does it. So just don't.

If conservative Republicans want my vote, they can start by stop trying to re-write history or argue with me about my own interests, and actually do something that earns my vote. Bush made loud noises about this during the last campaign, which was at least a small step, but in the end it was all talk and almost no action.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OAW

1. Become the "Party of Lincoln" again in more than name only. Allow "moderate" and even "liberal" Republicans to have a serious voice and stake in the party. IOW, don't just cater to conservatives and the religious right.

The history shows that the conservatives are, and have always been, the party of Lincoln in name and spirit.

The following organizations know it:
http://www.nbra.info/
http://www.theblackrepublican.net/
http://www.meckgop.com/mbrc.html
http://www.theblackgop.com/

There are others. Go and seek.

2. Lay off the anti-Affirmative Action rhetoric. Considering how negligible its impact is on the daily lives of the average white person the constant rhetoric against it is perceived as being "anti-black" as opposed to "pro-fairness". And let's not get into the whole "but I didn't get admitted to the college of my choice and some black person got in with a lower test score" nonsense. Those who go there have complete tunnel vision, and completely ignore the dozens of other white students who were admitted over them with a lower score. But that's the kind of foolishness the Republican party likes to tap into.

Some day you may stop labeling the racism of Affirmative Action as fairness.

On that day you will return to judging people based on the content of their character instead of the color of their skin.

Don't you want to hasten that day, make it arrive more quickly?

3. Understand that most black people are more concerned with day to day economic and social justice issues. Constantly harping about abortion and gay marriage and school prayer is not going to do it ... even though many agree. White evangelical Christians may get all worked up into a frenzy over those things, but most blacks are more concerned about pocketbook and fairness issues.

Tax cuts aren't pocketbook related?

4. Get it through their thick skulls that insulting the intelligence of the black community for voting overwhelming Democratic is not conducive to garnering its support. Especially in light of the clear and undeniable hostility that conservatives have shown to black people throughout the last century.

People make decisions for all sorts of reasons. Perceived best self-interest, result of teachings (whether correct or fiction). The problem is that people clothe themselves in these decisions, whether based in the truth or not, so it becomes difficult to remove the wool from people's eyes because they tie their identity to it.

It insults as much as when Democrats trot out that they're so much more intelligent than those stupid people who voted for Bush.

5. Understand that health care is a major issue. 41% of working age, middle class Americans with no health insurance for at least part of the year is no joke. Republicans need to be seen as being on the side of the insured/uninsured and not the insurance company. Just in general if they were seen as being on the side of the individual instead of the corporation (who generally have enough money to look out for their own interests) they would be more attractive.

Health care is a big issue. Is using governmental force the right answer to solve it?

What we need to do is recognize that insurance companies cater to companies that buy for their employees, not the employees themselves. Individuals are not seen as customers with any kind of power to the insurance providers. This is a result of employers being expected to provide benefits. If employers weren't expected to provide benefits, then the insurance companies would be forced to cater to the individual, and on the whole compete for insuring as many individuals as possible.

Government is not the right answer to every problem.

6. Realize that the solution to every problem is not necessarily a tax cut.

Link

OAW

Not every problem can be solved with a simple tax hike or new law.

Given that there have been so many tax hikes, including those disguised as tax cuts simply because taxes were increased less than hoped or anticipated (yes, people in Washington call an increase a cut. Beltway-speak!) a tax cut is a good place to start. It historically does show evidence of stimulating the economy and leaving money that belongs to its earner in their pockets.

Or was I mistaken? I thought you were concerned with fairness and pocketbook- what could be unfair about not letting government pickpocket your earnings?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW

1. Become the "Party of Lincoln" again in more than name only. Allow "moderate" and even "liberal" Republicans to have a serious voice and stake in the party. IOW, don't just cater to conservatives and the religious right.

Become the party of Lincoln again so about the time this happens we can rewrite history to claim Lincoln was only interested in freeing slaves to bring the Southern economy (agriculture) to a screeching halt??? Lincoln wanted blacks to prosper in freedom so badly that no education program was offered to build any marketable skill within the newly freed slave. Things can always be viewed two different ways. You can't go by your heart, I believe you have to go by your mind. If you don't appreciate the Republicans because of how you view a couple of policies in the 80's (child immunization and school lunch increase cuts you mentioned), then you're not really indicating why they should even try. I've got an idea. Instead of allowing "moderate" and "liberal" Republicans to re-shape the entire party, how about falling in line with what you claim are similar ideals? You water the Republican party down the way you suggest and then you'll have two covertly racist parties. I'd rather the Republicans remain Republicans. We've got enough trouble with people watering ideals down.

2. Lay off the anti-Affirmative Action rhetoric.

This is perfect evidence of what I'm talking about. Who is still spouting anti-affirmative action rhetoric??? Now what? Ready to move on over to common sense now?

Considering how negligible its impact is on the daily lives of the average white person the constant rhetoric against it is perceived as being "anti-black" as opposed to "pro-fairness".

Pro-fairness? Okay.

And let's not get into the whole "but I didn't get admitted to the college of my choice and some black person got in with a lower test score" nonsense. Those who go there have complete tunnel vision, and completely ignore the dozens of other white students who were admitted over them with a lower score. But that's the kind of foolishness the Republican party likes to tap into.

Let me get this straight; you suggest that those who complain about not getting admitted into college over those with lower scores are nonsensical and have tunnel vision... then go on to complain about the "dozens" of white students with lower scores who were admitted over blacks??? As if I didn't catch the error in your thinking you then go on to clarify this is the kind of foolishness parties like to tap into??? Silliness through and through. BTW, I'd like to see stats on the "dozens" of whites who got into college with lower scores than blacks. Parden me if "dozens" doesn't seem to equate to the human rights social injustice you're whining about below. Reverse racism is as apparent to the white man as racism is to the black man. The sooner you get it through your thick skull that as humans we're in this thing together, the better off and much less bitter you'll appear.

3. Understand that most black people are more concerned with day to day economic and social justice issues.

Such as those you've equated with tunnel vision???

Constantly harping about abortion and gay marriage and school prayer is not going to do it ... even though many agree.

They're not really "harping" about it. I think you've been reading some really mind-numbing liberal propoganda.

White evangelical Christians may get all worked up into a frenzy over those things, but most blacks are more concerned about pocketbook and fairness issues.

I may be inclined to agree with you and you might actually be shocked to realize that I might be one to disagree with black southern baptists for example. We're in this together. The sooner the black democrat gets this through his skull, the quicker he'll be registering Republican.

4. Get it through their thick skulls that insulting the intelligence of the black community for voting overwhelming Democratic is not conducive to garnering its support.

You mean it's equally insulting as calling Rice an errand girl, or Powell and Thomas an Uncle Tom? This is what the black man who votes Republican gets to look forward to. Personally, I don't think "looking cool" is worth supporting failed ideology.

Especially in light of the clear and undeniable hostility that conservatives have shown to black people throughout the last century.

5. Understand that health care is a major issue. 41% of working age, middle class Americans with no health insurance for at least part of the year is no joke. Republicans need to be seen as being on the side of the insured/uninsured and not the insurance company. Just in general if they were seen as being on the side of the individual instead of the corporation (who generally have enough money to look out for their own interests) they would be more attractive.

Vmarks addressed this point rather well. It's part of your compensation and should be an integral part of the benefits package used to woo you into the door. Fear and low self-worth are the only things that hinder and paralyze people from achieving their goals. As long as the black man continues to listen to the fact that he needs the white man's handout, there will be no progress. Self-empowment is the key to achievement, not failed policies of dependency-class building.

Link

OAW

I stand corrected. There is no new low a politician won't slip to, to try to gain votes in election year. To think I could be purchased for $100. Proposterous. I suspect this would be one of the more moderate and/or liberal Republicans in action.

[abe]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Man that's pretty unfair, considering that Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just a few months before he was assassinated.
Hmm. The CRA of 1964 was passed overwhelmingly by both parties. A majority of both parties voted for it. Politicians in the South, Democrats and Republicans, voted against it. But more Democrats than Republicans voted for it. Almost twice as many Democratic Senators as Republican Senators voted for it. I don't know how you can say it was passed with Republican support and Democratic opposition.

Too bad zigzag isn't here, I always enjoyed reading your debates with him on this issue.

BTW, it's Democratic party, not Democrat party.

Indeed. On all points here.

Sorry Crash, but Kennedy, being the young New England liberal he was, would have had little chance of passing a major Civil Rights bill.

Ironically, it took his death and the tremendous sympathy felt by most everyone along with the personal power of a "Southern" (though not DEEP South, Texas was still below the Mason Dixon line) LBJ, who historians Caro and Dallek consider the most effective Senate Majority Leader in history, to pass the Civil Rights Act. If you listen to tapes of Johnson talking on the phone to the Southern Senators you hear him use every trick in the book to persuade them to vote his way.

Quite a feat!

It was by no means a slam dunk even with JFK's death.

Johnson and the Democrats have every reason to be proud of what he was able to do for the country.

[Helmling]

No, taxcuts aren't a pocketbook issue.

Tax cuts are bait and switch. A few hundred bucks doesn't do much for the average American's botton line, but it equals thousands for the rich and millions less for the government to use.

It's a scam.

Perfect example: the offer before Congress to give Americans $100 and in exchange we give up a stretch of pristine Alaskan land to further perpetuate our addiction to oil.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Helmling

No, taxcuts aren't a pocketbook issue.

Tax cuts are bait and switch. A few hundred bucks doesn't do much for the average American's botton line, but it equals thousands for the rich and millions less for the government to use.

It's a scam.

Perfect example: the offer before Congress to give Americans $100 and in exchange we give up a stretch of pristine Alaskan land to further perpetuate our addiction to oil.

I am wading into water that's over my head, but I know that tax cuts CAN stimulate the economy and in that way you can't call it a "scam" without being more specific.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And you’re wrong about this. Southern whites did not abandon the Democratic Party. State legislatures, Governorships, and congress all remained predominantly Democrat in the south. A Republican dominated south didn’t occur until the 1990’s when Republicans took over congress, and this was long after the civil rights era. As I’ve pointed out- even the presidency- Carter and Clinton both had support from southern voters.

Again you argue a point that is not in dispute. The issue is presidential elections ... not state and local elections. I'm sure at least one post of mine has made that quite clear, and I do believe I've mentioned that the South still elects Democrats at the state and local level.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You’re really splitting hairs to come up with this. Funny, you give Johnson credit- as president- for the 1964 Act, yet here try and say Eisenhower deserves less credit in ’57 and ‘60. Excuse me, but how convenient.

The ’57 Act was introduced by Eisenhower’s Attorney General. Yes, of course technically the Majority Leader ‘introduced’ the legislation in congress, but come on. Johnson treated the whole idea like a hot potato. Republicans introduced the acts, drafted them, and supported it in larger percentages than Democrats. Kennedy, for example, (and not a southerner) voted against it.

Johnson gets more credit for the CRA of 1964 and the VRA of 1965 than I give Eisenhower for the CRA of 1957 and 1960 for one simple reason. The legislation signed by Johnson marked the first time that African-Americans could seriously be considered more than second-class citizens. The latter legislation had serious "teeth" in it. The enforcement provisions were more than window dressing. I'm not saying that Eisenhower's intentions weren't honorable ... in fact, I believe they were quite admirable. But the fact remains that the latter legislation are the ones that mattered.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

This is just sad. So never mind what the Democrats did, or would do to support or appeal to blacks, you’d ‘punish’ them if they dared to try for ‘white conservative’ support. This seems to be the crux of the matter right here. You’re more concerned with a bias against ‘white conservatives’ and being in ANY other party- no matter how foul- than concerned with whom truly did or will do anything for blacks. Symbolism over substance.

A rather interesting interpretation of what I said. Completely inaccurate, yet interesting nevertheless. Here's the deal .... any party that seeks to expand its support by appealing to the racial hostilities of white conservatives will not endear itself to African-American voters. Be it Democratic or Republican. As the motto of the Congressional Black Caucus states ... coined by former Congressman William Clay (D-MO) ....

Black people have
No permanent friends,
No permanent enemies,
Just permanent interests.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Didn’t you just get through ranting about how if the Dems were supportive of white conservatives you’d see blacks jumping ship for the Republican Party? Well, I hate to inform you, but you’ve been stumping for the party that actually KEPT most of the segregationists, and even promoted one of the worst offenders to the LEADERSHIP of the party. THAT’S the point. Of course you knew that- but it’s another of those annoying little fact that doesn’t fly with your re-write of the party’s history, and of your emphasis on symbolic bullcrap over actual substance.

Consider this. If the Democratic party at the national level still contains a large number of "Southern white conservatives", then why all the howling from the right about how "liberal" the Democratic party and its leadership is? What would they talk about all night on Fox News if this were really the case? Sure, Robert Byrd and Zell Miller ... two known (former) segregationists ... are still there as Democrats. But when one examines their actual voting records you will see that currently Miller votes 94% of the time with the Republican leadership, yet Byrd received a 100% on the civil rights legislation report card from the NAACP for the 108th Congress (2003-2004).

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Was it a politically incorrect thing for Reagan to make a state’s rights speech in Mississippi? Perhaps. But in reality, it’s more about a fundamental difference in the way Republicans view the constitution and the way liberal Democrats do. Republicans tend to believe that powers not specifically granted to the Federal Govt by the constitution belong to the states. Democrats believe that when a power is not specifically granted to the Federal Govt by the constitution, they can just pretend it is anyway, shout down anyone who points out it isn’t- and hijack that power as part of an ever-expanding Federal Govt. Reagan ran on a platform all over the country (of which, like it or not, the south is part of) of returning more power to the states and lessening Federal Govt. power grabs. The results are pretty clear. He won pretty handily in 1980. If your mythical non-conservative north vs. evil white conservative south hadn’t liked the results of 1980, or was really worried about any return to Jim Crow, perhaps they’d have gone for something different in 1984. Or 1988.

While your comments on the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats with respect to the role of the Federal government is interesting, it totally misses the point. Talking about supporting "state's rights" during a political campaign in the Deep South sends a thinly disguised message. Again, it appeals to the racial hostilities of the southern white electorate. As you yourself somewhat recognize even though you can only bring yourself to say that it was "politically incorrect" ... and even with that only "perhaps". While what you have said about "state's rights" is true in an academic sense, in a practical sense African-Americans hear "anti-black" when one starts talking about that topic. Why? Because our experience has consistently been that of states asserting their "right" to disenfranchise us socially, economically, educationally, and politically. Never has it been to protect the rights of the black community under the banner of "state's rights". The fact of the matter is that many states only respected the rights of African-Americans when they were compelled to by the Federal government.

Of course, no one really expects a return to Jim Crow. That ship has sailed. But there are other things that can be done in a more subtle manner to appease white conservative voters at the expense of the black community. E.g., Lax enforcement of civil rights legislation, dismantling of affirmative-action programs, etc.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

If you don't appreciate the Republicans because of how you view a couple of policies in the 80's (child immunization and school lunch increase cuts you mentioned), then you're not really indicating why they should even try.

If you think that is the only reason black people don't appreciate the modern Republican party then you haven't been paying attention. That's all that really needs to be said on that particular point.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

This is perfect evidence of what I'm talking about. Who is still spouting anti-affirmative action rhetoric??? Now what? Ready to move on over to common sense now?

Hmmm ... how about George Bush, William Bennett, Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, and a host of conservative think tanks/organizations such as American Enterprise Institute, Eagle Forum, Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, etc. .... just to name a few.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Let me get this straight; you suggest that those who complain about not getting admitted into college over those with lower scores are nonsensical and have tunnel vision... then go on to complain about the "dozens" of white students with lower scores who were admitted over blacks??? As if I didn't catch the error in your thinking you then go on to clarify this is the kind of foolishness parties like to tap into??? Silliness through and through. BTW, I'd like to see stats on the "dozens" of whites who got into college with lower scores than blacks. Parden me if "dozens" doesn't seem to equate to the human rights social injustice you're whining about below. Reverse racism is as apparent to the white man as racism is to the black man. The sooner you get it through your thick skull that as humans we're in this thing together, the better off and much less bitter you'll appear.

Perhaps you should re-read my statement before you go off on some ridiculous tirade against something I didn't say. Now pay attention this time ... here's what I said ....

Originally Posted by OAW

And let's not get into the whole "but I didn't get admitted to the college of my choice and some black person got in with a lower test score" nonsense. Those who go there have complete tunnel vision, and completely ignore the dozens of other white students who were admitted over them with a lower score. But that's the kind of foolishness the Republican party likes to tap into.

Now given the context of the topic and the actual words written, who does "those" refer to? Quite obviously, the white students who were not admitted and who complain about black students with a lower test score who were. Given your response, you picked up on that part as well. But here is where your recollection of Reading Comprehension 101 temporarily failed you it seems. Who does "them" refer to given the context and the structure of the sentence? Apparently you think it refers to "black students" given the incredulity you expressed when you said "... then go on to complain about the "dozens" of white students with lower scores who were admitted over blacks???". But guess what? You are completely incorrect. Why?

1. "them" is a pronoun which means it refers to to something or someone else mentioned. "Black students" aren't mentioned in the sentence where this word is used. What is mentioned, and what the word "them" actually refers to is the word "Those" ... which just so happens to be the subject of the sentence.

2. If "them" referred to the "black students", then my whole comment about "tunnel vision" wouldn't even make logical sense. The reason why the white students who aren't admitted and complain about black students with lower test scores who were have "tunnel vision" is precisely because they ignore the dozens of other white students who got in with a lower test score. Here is an excerpt from "Affirmative Action, Racial Preference in Black and White" by Tim Wise, regarding the recent Univ. of Michigan case that illustrates this point ....

Consider the case against the university's undergraduate College of Literature, Sciences, and the Arts. According to the plaintiffs, and ultimately the majority of the Supreme Court, white applicants were at an unfair disadvantage because the university awarded twenty points (out of a possible 150-point evaluation scale) to students who come from "underrepresented minority" groups (or URMs for short), which are defined by the school as African Americans, Latino/as, and American Indians. Because there were twenty points that were, by definition, off-limits to whites, critics contended that the policy was ipso facto a form of racial "preference" and unfair discrimination.

Yet such a simplistic reading of the Michigan program was misleading for a number of reasons. First, there was no dispute by the white plaintiffs that each and every applicant of color admitted was fully qualified to be there. Additionally, there was no dispute that the same year the lead plaintiff in the case was rejected by the University of Michigan, there were fourteen hundred other non-URMs (most whites) who were admitted despite have lower test scores and grades than she did. And there were two thousand other non-URMs rejected who had higher grades and test scores than she. The first of these facts proves that whites were not being rejected to make way for "less qualified" people of color, as they were actually getting passed over mostly for other whites, including those less "qualified" than themselves. The second of these facts demonstrates that the lead plaintiff in this case, whose claim for reverse discrimination was presumably strongest, would not have likely gotten into the University of Michigan, even if there had been no affirmative action programs. As the data show, there were at least two thousand other whites and Asians ahead of her in line, if test scores and grades had been the sole or primary factors, as affirmative action critics seem to prefer.

In other words, to such individuals who are rejected for admission, another student getting in with a lower test score is only a problem when an African-American or other minority benefits. I wonder why?

OAW