Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 8, 2004 Honestly, I didn't see it. I didn't see Reagan or either of the Bushes as in any opposition to civil rights. They opposed the Civil Rights Movement leadership ---but that does not mean they opposed the rights. Dole had no real message --- but I doubt he was racist. I'd say that the fight was lost for awhile after 1964. There's some resentment. And recognition of what Democrats have done, or have been percieved as doing. There's suspect actions from the GOP from the 1870s to the 1950s. Republican organizations in the South began to distance themselves from Black voters even in the 1920s. I'm sure the numbers are out there. But, I think Bush in 2000 got one of the lower vote totals from black voters, and his showing in cities was one of the worst ever for his party. Oh, I don't doubt that Bush gets terrible numbers with black voters. But, he hasn't really done anything to WARRANT that, though. I can't name a single "racist" policy he's done. The thing that bugs me is that the GOP has the image of being racists, but the GOP has been behind every major civil rights initiative. GOP freed the slaves. GOP passed the Voting Rights Act. It's not like their history even remotely matches up with the IMAGE of their history. Buchanan came close --- but he didn't actually run for office with the GOP. He ran as a Republican in 1992 though. But, not in a general election. And David Duke too. But, Duke benefitted from the dumbasses who vote for the whiter candidate. I found a story that claimed that areas in Louisiana that supported Duke helped give Blanco the victory over Bobby Jindal. Better people than we have gone insane trying to decipher Louisiana politics. And that's all I'd expect of anybody. Did his mind change? I don't know --- and I honestly don't care. If he'll provide the same service, whether he likes you or not, that almost speaks more highly of him. I don't need anybody to like anybody else --- I need them, though, to do their job and when the rules change, to change along with them. Yeah, basically voting just on your own principles and not what the people in your state want might get you a 'Profile in Courage' but it'll also get you defeated for re-election. True --- but I will give him credit, though, for not really raising a stink as the rules were changed. Once the dust settled, he settled into line. I have no problem with fighting for your beliefs --- but when your side is defeated, you have to let it go every so often. Strom, far as I know, did that. Dodd did what Lott did --- said something in an attempt to kiss the BUTT of a very senior Senator. Lott is probably a bit more knowledgeable about Strom than Dodd is about Byrd. Even if Dodd's dad did serve in the Senate with Byrd I doubt that. I thought everybody in Washington knew Byrd's past, but nobody really discussed it. Marney, is anybody in Washington ignorant of Byrd's, er, "colorful" (probably the wrong term, in hindsight) history. I thought the outcry over Lott's comments was ridiculous (he was at Strom's 100th birthday party --- he's GOING to say something to make the geezer feel good about himself) I'd say that he could have kissed BUTT without going that far. The part about the 'country not having all these problems if he was elected' was overdoing it. "We voted for you in 1948" doesn't seem as objectionable. And remember that Lott also said that about Strom in 1980. True --- but people can't point to "racist" legislation Lott proposed in the US Senate. Honestly, if he were from, say, Michigan, nobody would have assumed he was a racist. It's being Southern that got him. My beef is that while I'd like to believe that the media simply recognized Dodd's comments for what they were (a non-story, to simplify), but I still doubt they'd give a Republican who said the same thing a similar break. I'll put this out so you won't have to find it. "Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has said, 'If a Democratic leader had made[Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever'" [Although technically, Byrd isn't a leader at the moment. He'd be Pres. Pro-Tem if the Democrats had a Majority. And if he stepped away from that, Ted Kennedy would be next in line] Although, we'd have to see about that claim. If a Dem made a statement that went right out to support a group like that now-a-days, there'd be reason to question them. Dodd was probably glossing over a bit of Byrd's record As Lott did with Strom. It wasn't wrong in either case (again, just BUTT kissing) --- but the lack of coverage does, honestly, reek of a double standard. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted April 9, 2004 But, he hasn't really done anything to WARRANT that, though. I can't name a single "racist" policy he's done. How has Bush appealed to Black voters? I'd imagine that it'd take alot to really win them over anyways. The thing that bugs me is that the GOP has the image of being racists, but the GOP has been behind every major civil rights initiative. GOP freed the slaves. GOP passed the Voting Rights Act. #1 - The VRA was signed by a Democrat. #2 - Claiming credit for something that happened almost 140 years ago isn't too appealing. How about the Republicans ending reconstruction in the 1870s? and then letting Segregation rise in the late 1890s. What did they do in the 1900s? 1910s? 1920s? For decades, Republicans got the majority of votes from African-Americans, and they did nothing. It's not like their history even remotely matches up with the IMAGE of their history. It's their image, they can shape it as they wish. Better people than we have gone insane trying to decipher Louisiana politics. The 'orgy' system of an open primary and a runoff in December is unique. Louisiana does have elections over the weekends (well, for their governor's race). That wouldn't be too bad of an idea to bring to other states. True --- but I will give him credit, though, for not really raising a stink as the rules were changed. Once the dust settled, he settled into line. I have no problem with fighting for your beliefs --- but when your side is defeated, you have to let it go every so often. Strom, far as I know, did that. Strom was a politician first. Polticians are oppurtunistic by nature. Anyways, it's a good idea to not tick off voter bases such as African-Americans and adapt to the times. Although I've read stuff about how he'd 'stand up to the establishment' to get himself more votes and praise. Such as the 1954 Senate Election. Southern politics in general is very tough to decipher. I doubt that. I thought everybody in Washington knew Byrd's past, but nobody really discussed it. Yeah, but this is Chris Dodd. He may not be the most knowledgible about that. I wonder how many US Senators know that Truman joined the Klan for a short time in the 1920s (before quitting due to the Klan's anti-catholic stance)? These are Senators, not Scholars. True --- but people can't point to "racist" legislation Lott proposed in the US Senate. Honestly, if he were from, say, Michigan, nobody would have assumed he was a racist. They would have assumed he was crazy if he was from Michigan and he said that they voted for Thurmond and they were proud of it. If he was from Michigan and praised Strom, it wouldn't have went as far and nobody would have noticed. It's being Southern that got him. Nah, it was sticking his foot in his mouth. He just happens to be a Southerner. As Lott did with Strom. It wasn't wrong in either case (again, just BUTT kissing) --- but the lack of coverage does, honestly, reek of a double standard. Well, was there really as much 'other news' going on then as there is now? Now, there's the 9/11 commission and Iraq. Then, I think it was easier for a Senator making a dumb comment to be the top story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 9, 2004 But, he hasn't really done anything to WARRANT that, though. I can't name a single "racist" policy he's done. How has Bush appealed to Black voters? I'd imagine that it'd take alot to really win them over anyways. Well, he does have two blacks in extremely key positions in the Cabinet. Nobody --- not even the "First Black President" pulled that off. The thing that bugs me is that the GOP has the image of being racists, but the GOP has been behind every major civil rights initiative. GOP freed the slaves. GOP passed the Voting Rights Act. #1 - The VRA was signed by a Democrat. True --- but who PASSED it. LBJ went to the Republicans to get it passed. #2 - Claiming credit for something that happened almost 140 years ago isn't too appealing. Thing is, the Democrats really can't point to anything. How about the Republicans ending reconstruction in the 1870s? and then letting Segregation rise in the late 1890s. What did they do in the 1900s? 1910s? 1920s? For decades, Republicans got the majority of votes from African-Americans, and they did nothing. But who RAN the South? That is a key issue. The Democrats ran the South. The GOP may have done "nothing" --- but it was the Democrats who used police dogs, hoses, and all but advocated lynching. It was a Democrat who put up the Confederate flag here on the State House (Hollings, in fact). Heck, Strom is one of the FIRST Republicans in the South. Before him, my state almost never HELD Republican primaries for anything. It's not like their history even remotely matches up with the IMAGE of their history. It's their image, they can shape it as they wish. No, they cannot. When an image is out there, it BECOMES truth, no matter how false it is. The GOP was scared of the civil rights movement and shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson for years and never fought back against him when he would lie about them because they wouldn't give him any power in their party. Better people than we have gone insane trying to decipher Louisiana politics. The 'orgy' system of an open primary and a runoff in December is unique. Louisiana does have elections over the weekends (well, for their governor's race). That wouldn't be too bad of an idea to bring to other states. True --- but since a lot of gov't employees are unionized --- that might be difficult in many states. True --- but I will give him credit, though, for not really raising a stink as the rules were changed. Once the dust settled, he settled into line. I have no problem with fighting for your beliefs --- but when your side is defeated, you have to let it go every so often. Strom, far as I know, did that. Strom was a politician first. Polticians are oppurtunistic by nature. Anyways, it's a good idea to not tick off voter bases such as African-Americans and adapt to the times. Although I've read stuff about how he'd 'stand up to the establishment' to get himself more votes and praise. Such as the 1954 Senate Election. Southern politics in general is very tough to decipher. True --- we hate "hand outs" --- yet get pissed when we don't get them. I doubt that. I thought everybody in Washington knew Byrd's past, but nobody really discussed it. Yeah, but this is Chris Dodd. He may not be the most knowledgible about that. I wonder how many US Senators know that Truman joined the Klan for a short time in the 1920s (before quitting due to the Klan's anti-catholic stance)? These are Senators, not Scholars. True --- but if he were held to account for his statements, they'd learn quickly. True --- but people can't point to "racist" legislation Lott proposed in the US Senate. Honestly, if he were from, say, Michigan, nobody would have assumed he was a racist. They would have assumed he was crazy if he was from Michigan and he said that they voted for Thurmond and they were proud of it. If he was from Michigan and praised Strom, it wouldn't have went as far and nobody would have noticed. It's being Southern that got him. Nah, it was sticking his foot in his mouth. He just happens to be a Southerner. But, again, Dodd stuck his foot in his mouth. Lott's problem is that the mentality of A LOT of the mainstream press is that Southerners are virulent racists who, if they don't watch us every second, will lynch every black person we possibly can. Lott's comments simply fit into their untrue image. As Lott did with Strom. It wasn't wrong in either case (again, just BUTT kissing) --- but the lack of coverage does, honestly, reek of a double standard. Well, was there really as much 'other news' going on then as there is now? Now, there's the 9/11 commission and Iraq. Then, I think it was easier for a Senator making a dumb comment to be the top story. Umm, there was the whole economy in free-fall story going on. And, I think we were in Afghanistan at that point. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted April 9, 2004 Yeah, but this is Chris Dodd. He may not be the most knowledgible about that. What? No, really......what? If a schmuck like me knows that Byrd is a former Klansman, then one of his contemporaries should CERTAINLY know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted April 9, 2004 Well, he does have two blacks in extremely key positions in the Cabinet. Nobody --- not even the "First Black President" pulled that off. Factual nitpick: NSA isn't a cabinet advisor And as well, what does appointing Colin Powell to be Secretary of State do to help regular black people? (I'm not exactly sure about the opinion on Powell/Rice by the Black community. But, I'm sure it's not positive. Either for being Republicans or whatever else. Heck, maybe some resent them for being lighter skinned. I don't know what the deal would be. But, I do know of countries where there are black/mulatto clashes. Like Haiti or the Dominican Republic) True --- but who PASSED it. LBJ went to the Republicans to get it passed. While the Republicans did help pass that and the Civil Rights act. They also nominated a Conservative who voted against the Civil Rights act, and their 1964 convention voted down a condemnation of extremism. And then the Republicans went to the South to win over disillusioned Democrats over. How good of an impression does it make to help pass something, while nominating people who didn't help pass such legislation? Republicans had a shot a long time ago to brag about that. It appears they didn't do it then. I guess it was a bit more important to win over the South than the African-American vote. Thing is, the Democrats really can't point to anything. Desegregation of the Military (Truman), ending discrimination for federally owned/financed/operated property (Kennedy). And also, with Johnson, let me repeat my previous point, had Goldwater been President, he wouldn't have signed the Civil Rights act. Care to mention anything that suggests different with Goldwater and the VRA? Had Nixon been elected, could you confidently say that he would have moved for Civil Rights legislation like Kennedy or got it passed like Johnson? But who RAN the South? That is a key issue. The Democrats ran the South. And who ran the White House for 40 years out of the 56 from 1877 to 1933? Who controlled the Senate for 46 of those 56 years? who ran the house for 32 of 56 years? The Republicans. And even with that control, they didn't have the eagerness to try and pass any anything. I'd say that it was possible to pull off. It'd take a bit of research (thankfully, I have a huge-ass CQ Guide to US Elections here at the moment), but even with the Democrats in the South, the House and Senate could have done something. The start of all this is Comprimise of 1877. Where Hayes ended reconstruction to appease the South. And there were such groups as "The Lily White Movement" of Texas ( http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/LL/wfl1.html ) where White Republicans sought to kick Black Republicans out of positions of power in the party. And something that relates specifically to the 1928 election - http://www.pressroom.com/~afrimale/hoover.htm "Hoover’s purge of African Americans from southern branches of his party would complete their banishment from the politics of the region. At the 1928 Republican National Convention, the Hoover-controlled credentials committee, refused to seat Florida black delegates replacing them with the “lily-white” white candidates from that state. This scenario was repeated in state after state as black delegates from the south were replaced by white delegates." The GOP may have done "nothing" --- but it was the Democrats who used police dogs, hoses, and all but advocated lynching. 'The Democrats' implies 'All Democrats'. Yeah, Democrats did run the South and thanks in part to them being allowed to declare their party a 'private organization', they were allowed to keep black voters out of the party in the South. It wasn't until the Smith v. Allwright decision in 1944 that the end of that was in sight. It was a Democrat who put up the Confederate flag here on the State House (Hollings, in fact). I'd imagine that Hollings did it as an 'asskissing' measure. As he was running for the Senate against Olin Johnson in 1962. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93720,00.html "A World War II combat veteran, Hollings was elected as a state legislator, lieutenant governor and governor, the last of which he became at age 36. He oversaw the peaceful desegregation of his state's schools, something other southern governors at the time resisted." Heck, Strom is one of the FIRST Republicans in the South. Before him, my state almost never HELD Republican primaries for anything. And the closest a Republican came to winning anything before Strom was Eisenhower, who was nominated by a group called "South Carolinans for Eisenhower". No, they cannot. When an image is out there, it BECOMES truth, no matter how false it is. You're just surrendering there Mike. History is intrepreted. It can be shaped and spun. At that time, I don't think it was a priority for the Republicans to hail their role in Civil Rights. The GOP was scared of the civil rights movement and shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson for years and never fought back against him when he would lie about them because they wouldn't give him any power in their party. That's their problem, isn't it? I guess you guys should have fought back at that time. True --- but since a lot of gov't employees are unionized --- that might be difficult in many states. yeah. There's probably a comparison between turnout for elections on Saturday and elections on Tuesday. True --- we hate "hand outs" --- yet get pissed when we don't get them. I believe this was mentioned in The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968 that a dissenting group of Ole Miss students went to the 'Dixiecrat' convention in Alabama and mentioned that they were hypocrites for supporting the New Deal and big government and claiming to be 'States Righters'. But, again, Dodd stuck his foot in his mouth. Lott's problem is that the mentality of A LOT of the mainstream press is that Southerners are virulent racists who, if they don't watch us every second, will lynch every black person we possibly can. Lott's comments simply fit into their untrue image. Lott's statements about 'America not having so many problems if we elected Strom' are bound to fall into that image. What he said was just simply overdoing it on asskissing. There would have been no objection if he mentioned Mississippi voting for Strom, that's a fact. He inserted opinion into it afterwards. Umm, there was the whole economy in free-fall story going on. And, I think we were in Afghanistan at that point. Well, in late December 2002, I'm not sure how much the Economy was being mentioned. There's definately alot more competition in the news right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 9, 2004 Well, he does have two blacks in extremely key positions in the Cabinet. Nobody --- not even the "First Black President" pulled that off. Factual nitpick: NSA isn't a cabinet advisor Point taken. And as well, what does appointing Colin Powell to be Secretary of State do to help regular black people? (I'm not exactly sure about the opinion on Powell/Rice by the Black community. But, I'm sure it's not positive. Either for being Republicans or whatever else. Heck, maybe some resent them for being lighter skinned. I don't know what the deal would be. But, I do know of countries where there are black/mulatto clashes. Like Haiti or the Dominican Republic) Sad truth is, the left wing (not the Democratic Party itself, mind you) have basically told the world that a black who has viewpoints that disagree with them is NOT REALLY BLACK. It's actually exceptionally insulting if you think about --- all blacks must think in groupthink to "be black". True --- but who PASSED it. LBJ went to the Republicans to get it passed. While the Republicans did help pass that and the Civil Rights act. They also nominated a Conservative who voted against the Civil Rights act, and their 1964 convention voted down a condemnation of extremism. And then the Republicans went to the South to win over disillusioned Democrats over. How good of an impression does it make to help pass something, while nominating people who didn't help pass such legislation? But the Democrats flat-out opposed it. Republicans had a shot a long time ago to brag about that. It appears they didn't do it then. I guess it was a bit more important to win over the South than the African-American vote. Heck, Republicans gave women the right to vote and they don't win that vote terribly often, either. Thing is, the Democrats really can't point to anything. Desegregation of the Military (Truman), ending discrimination for federally owned/financed/operated property (Kennedy). Truman was also a racist by all accounts. Eisenhower forcibly desegregated schools in Arkansas --- a very bold move by a guy who hated making bold moves politically. And also, with Johnson, let me repeat my previous point, had Goldwater been President, he wouldn't have signed the Civil Rights act. Care to mention anything that suggests different with Goldwater and the VRA? Actually, the Republicans in Congress would have informed him that he'd be wise to not veto it or else they'd make his life heck. Had Nixon been elected, could you confidently say that he would have moved for Civil Rights legislation like Kennedy or got it passed like Johnson? Honestly, yes. For all of his faults, that is something Nixon would have done. Heck, the man founded the EPA. He was not nearly as right-wing as people think. I actually think he would've done far more than JFK (who pissed off civil rights leaders by doing nothing). But who RAN the South? That is a key issue. The Democrats ran the South. And who ran the White House for 40 years out of the 56 from 1877 to 1933? Who controlled the Senate for 46 of those 56 years? who ran the house for 32 of 56 years? The Republicans. And even with that control, they didn't have the eagerness to try and pass any anything. I'd say that it was possible to pull off. It'd take a bit of research (thankfully, I have a huge-ass CQ Guide to US Elections here at the moment), but even with the Democrats in the South, the House and Senate could have done something. Eisenhower enforced Brown v Bd of Education --- the one time the federal gov't had a legitimate role there. Until that point, it was always framed as a state's right issue. The start of all this is Comprimise of 1877. Where Hayes ended reconstruction to appease the South. And there were such groups as "The Lily White Movement" of Texas ( http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online...ew/LL/wfl1.html ) where White Republicans sought to kick Black Republicans out of positions of power in the party. Oh, I don't doubt that some parts of the GOP were idiotic here --- but the party as a whole has been a party all about civil rights. And something that relates specifically to the 1928 election - http://www.pressroom.com/~afrimale/hoover.htm "Hoover’s purge of African Americans from southern branches of his party would complete their banishment from the politics of the region. At the 1928 Republican National Convention, the Hoover-controlled credentials committee, refused to seat Florida black delegates replacing them with the “lily-white” white candidates from that state. This scenario was repeated in state after state as black delegates from the south were replaced by white delegates." Woodrow Wilson was actually worse on race than any Republican. He basically ended ANY blacks in respectable positions in the federal gov't. The GOP may have done "nothing" --- but it was the Democrats who used police dogs, hoses, and all but advocated lynching. 'The Democrats' implies 'All Democrats'. Yeah, Democrats did run the South and thanks in part to them being allowed to declare their party a 'private organization', they were allowed to keep black voters out of the party in the South. It wasn't until the Smith v. Allwright decision in 1944 that the end of that was in sight. Not trying to imply all Democrats. Some were decent people --- but the Republicans were much better on this issue than the Dems were and were that way for many years. It was a Democrat who put up the Confederate flag here on the State House (Hollings, in fact). I'd imagine that Hollings did it as an 'asskissing' measure. As he was running for the Senate against Olin Johnson in 1962. Not really. He had the party behind him and that was all he needed. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93720,00.html "A World War II combat veteran, Hollings was elected as a state legislator, lieutenant governor and governor, the last of which he became at age 36. He oversaw the peaceful desegregation of his state's schools, something other southern governors at the time resisted." But his other actions (putting up the flag) can't be ignored, either. Heck, Strom is one of the FIRST Republicans in the South. Before him, my state almost never HELD Republican primaries for anything. And the closest a Republican came to winning anything before Strom was Eisenhower, who was nominated by a group called "South Carolinans for Eisenhower". No, they cannot. When an image is out there, it BECOMES truth, no matter how false it is. You're just surrendering there Mike. History is intrepreted. It can be shaped and spun. It can be, but it is nigh impossible at this point. Blacks think Republicans are racist. They can't point to any racist legislation in, well, the last 20 years, but they honestly believe that the Republicans are for church burnings and the leadership doesn't wish to debate the issue of the lack of need for hate crime legislation. The leadership has found that targeting the GOP is easy because they already have an in with the Democrats. ANY conservative black is painted with the Uncle Tom brush. ALL of them. If the black leadership won't even acknowledge that opposing views to theirs within their community are legitimate, there isn't a lot people can do. The Dems won't correct them because it benefits them to have that belief out there. The GOP was scared of the civil rights movement and shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson for years and never fought back against him when he would lie about them because they wouldn't give him any power in their party. That's their problem, isn't it? I guess you guys should have fought back at that time. Yes, they should have. However, it's hard when even legitimate concerns (such as, say, Jesse Jackson's usage of money he gets through his "non-profit organizations --- issues ANY group should be subject to) are just painted as racism and the media won't do anything to even attempt to allow the Republicans to make a point. These issues are far above what sound bites allow you to state. It's virtually impossible to express disagreement with hate crime legislation with a little sound bite. It's quite easy to express agreement with it in a sound bite as it is a "feel good" measure. True --- we hate "hand outs" --- yet get pissed when we don't get them. I believe this was mentioned in The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932-1968 that a dissenting group of Ole Miss students went to the 'Dixiecrat' convention in Alabama and mentioned that they were hypocrites for supporting the New Deal and big government and claiming to be 'States Righters'. Some Southerners hate it --- but most don't. Gotta be honest. Most of us want those gov't handouts --- "conservative" as we are. But, again, Dodd stuck his foot in his mouth. Lott's problem is that the mentality of A LOT of the mainstream press is that Southerners are virulent racists who, if they don't watch us every second, will lynch every black person we possibly can. Lott's comments simply fit into their untrue image. Lott's statements about 'America not having so many problems if we elected Strom' are bound to fall into that image. What he said was just simply overdoing it on asskissing. There would have been no objection if he mentioned Mississippi voting for Strom, that's a fact. He inserted opinion into it afterwards. But it's no worse than saying a former Klansman would have been right in any era of history --- even mentioning the Civil War in that list. Umm, there was the whole economy in free-fall story going on. And, I think we were in Afghanistan at that point. Well, in late December 2002, I'm not sure how much the Economy was being mentioned. There's definately alot more competition in the news right now. I think you mean 2001. Late Dec. 2002, it was mentioned constantly as the Democratic candidates were out belaboring the point. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted April 9, 2004 Sad truth is, the left wing (not the Democratic Party itself, mind you) have basically told the world that a black who has viewpoints that disagree with them is NOT REALLY BLACK. It's actually exceptionally insulting if you think about --- all blacks must think in groupthink to "be black". Yeah, true. And also, I could have sworn seeing something that claimed that there were a portion of black people surveyed who had Libertarian tendancies or something of that sort. But the Democrats flat-out opposed it. Nope. Wrong. A majority of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights act. It's just that percentages are used and they show that a higher percent of Republicans voted for it. Had Democrats in 1964 'flat-out' opposed it, it would have been crushed. Heck, Republicans gave women the right to vote and they don't win that vote terribly often, either. The Exit Polls gave the female vote to Gore at 54-43. That's nowhere near as bad as Bush's showing with African Americans (90-9), Hispanic voters (62-35), Asians (55-41) and Jewish people (80-17). That might be stretching it a bit. Truman was also a racist by all accounts. Which accounts would those be Mike? Eisenhower forcibly desegregated schools in Arkansas --- a very bold move by a guy who hated making bold moves politically. Eisenhower did it to 'make a point' regarding federal orders and Supreme Court decisions (or the decisions) too. And there's not too much to hold against Dwight. He was quite a moderate, he was popular, he had a catchy slogan, and it was a shame that the Democrats couldn't get him in 1952. Actually, the Republicans in Congress would have informed him that he'd be wise to not veto it or else they'd make his life heck. The Republicans weren't that powerful in the 89th congress (65-67) or the 88th congress (63-65). In the Senate, the Democrats had majorities of 67-33 and 68-32. In the House, the majorities were 258-177 and 295-140. Other than overriding vetoes, there's not much the Republicans could do. Honestly, yes. For all of his faults, that is something Nixon would have done. Heck, the man founded the EPA. He was not nearly as right-wing as people think. I actually think he would've done far more than JFK (who pissed off civil rights leaders by doing nothing). Nixon wasn't that conservative. It's probably how he rose in power that changes the perception of him. Although in the 60s, it's possible he could have supported some legislation. JFK's record was sorta shady. But LBJ with his connections and all that got the ball rolling. Eisenhower enforced Brown v Bd of Education --- the one time the federal gov't had a legitimate role there. Until that point, it was always framed as a state's right issue. The constitution allowed for legislation to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. Yet for many years, those amendments had no real enforcement. Oh, I don't doubt that some parts of the GOP were idiotic here --- but the party as a whole has been a party all about civil rights. All about? Nah.. I wouldn't go that far. They were founded to oppose slavery, but for decades from the 1880s on-wards, they didn't do anything. Here's some more on the GOP and civil rights http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3543 By the Progressive Era, both the Republicans and the Democrats were showing little interest in helping African-Americans. One issue that couldn't be ignored -- though the parties tried -- was the horror of lynching, which had become rampant in the post-Reconstruction South. Anti-lynching laws marked the last major civil rights issue on which Republicans were out in front. In 1920 Congressman Leonidas Dyer, a Missouri Republican from a largely black St. Louis district, introduced an anti-lynching bill. The new Republican president, Warren Harding, endorsed it. And the House passed it in January 1922, with support from all but seventeen Republicans. Yet even though they controlled the Senate as well, the GOP couldn't, or wouldn't, pull out the stops to pass the bill into law. While Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts supported the bill, the powerful Idaho Republican William Borah opposed it. Borah believed the measure amounted to interference with the states' autonomy and he helped Southern Democrats kill it. Eventually, Borah's states' rights ideology would come to dominate the GOP, at the expense of Lodge's racial liberalism Woodrow Wilson was actually worse on race than any Republican. He basically ended ANY blacks in respectable positions in the federal gov't. Yeah, Wilson was a Virginian who grew up during the Civil War. And Wilson was quite the racist himself. So both parties around the 1920s had a lousy record on civil rights. Not trying to imply all Democrats. Some were decent people --- but the Republicans were much better on this issue than the Dems were and were that way for many years. I'd say that's true. Granted, it wasn't that hard to be better than the Democrats on race at that time in history. Not really. He had the party behind him and that was all he needed. Actually, to be honest. Johnson crushed Hollings in the 1962 primary by a 66-34 margin. There'd have to be some reason why a sitting Governor would lose by such a large margin to a US Senator. Hollings did win election in a special election, first beating Donald Russell (Russell succeeded Johnson when he died. How did he pull it off? by resigning as Governor and then he was appointed to the Senate) and winning a special election over an actual Republican. But his other actions (putting up the flag) can't be ignored, either. What other actions did he make? Whatever horrible actions he made, apparently they weren't enough to avoid losing to a US Senator by 32 points in a Primary. (Strom also ran against Olin, and lost 54-46) It can be, but it is nigh impossible at this point. Blacks think Republicans are racist. I don't think it's quite like that. But, Blacks won't vote for Republicans. but they honestly believe that the Republicans are for church burnings I must have missed that survey. Yes, they should have. However, it's hard when even legitimate concerns (such as, say, Jesse Jackson's usage of money he gets through his "non-profit organizations --- issues ANY group should be subject to) are just painted as racism and the media won't do anything to even attempt to allow the Republicans to make a point. So basically it was too hard with the Liberal Media? Ok. And also because it's hard to successfully attack someone's methods of doing things. I'm sure it's also hard to come out and state the achievements of the party and all that. Some Southerners hate it --- but most don't. Gotta be honest. Most of us want those gov't handouts --- "conservative" as we are. Yep. It happens. But it's no worse than saying a former Klansman would have been right in any era of history --- even mentioning the Civil War in that list. Including the Civil War is questionable. But it's not as bad as Lott's statement. I think you mean 2001. Late Dec. 2002, it was mentioned constantly as the Democratic candidates were out belaboring the point. I'm pretty sure that Lott made his comments in November or December 2002 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted April 9, 2004 Sad truth is, the left wing (not the Democratic Party itself, mind you) have basically told the world that a black who has viewpoints that disagree with them is NOT REALLY BLACK. It's actually exceptionally insulting if you think about --- all blacks must think in groupthink to "be black". Yeah, true. And also, I could have sworn seeing something that claimed that there were a portion of black people surveyed who had Libertarian tendancies or something of that sort. Blacks tend to be quite conservative and actually agree with Republicans on a great many issues when you go by their answers in poll after poll. But the Democrats flat-out opposed it. Nope. Wrong. A majority of Democrats voted for the Civil Rights act. It's just that percentages are used and they show that a higher percent of Republicans voted for it. Had Democrats in 1964 'flat-out' opposed it, it would have been crushed. But if LBJ relied on just the Democrats, it would've had no opportunity, whatsoever, to win. Heck, Republicans gave women the right to vote and they don't win that vote terribly often, either. The Exit Polls gave the female vote to Gore at 54-43. That's nowhere near as bad as Bush's showing with African Americans (90-9), Hispanic voters (62-35), Asians (55-41) and Jewish people (80-17). That might be stretching it a bit. And there is not a bigger friend to Israel out there than the Republican Party. The GOP lacks the anti-semitic wing that, sadly, the civil rights movement has become (Republicans didn't call NYC "Hymie-town"). Jewish support for the Democrats is baffling --- at least at the levels it occurs. Truman was also a racist by all accounts. Which accounts would those be Mike? Any book I've ever read on the man. Not fair to him as everybody was a racist. Heck, Lincoln was a racist. Eisenhower forcibly desegregated schools in Arkansas --- a very bold move by a guy who hated making bold moves politically. Eisenhower did it to 'make a point' regarding federal orders and Supreme Court decisions (or the decisions) too. And there's not too much to hold against Dwight. He was quite a moderate, he was popular, he had a catchy slogan, and it was a shame that the Democrats couldn't get him in 1952. Most Republican Presidents have been quite moderate. The only really conservative one was Reagan --- and he was very much the right man at the right time. Heck, Bush Jr. is hardly a rigid conservative, as his domestic policies indicate. Actually, the Republicans in Congress would have informed him that he'd be wise to not veto it or else they'd make his life heck. The Republicans weren't that powerful in the 89th congress (65-67) or the 88th congress (63-65). In the Senate, the Democrats had majorities of 67-33 and 68-32. In the House, the majorities were 258-177 and 295-140. I know --- but the GOP do have the ability to tell their Presidents what is and what is not a good fight. Heck, Goldwater was a major force in convincing Nixon that he had no shot in hell of surviving impeachment. Other than overriding vetoes, there's not much the Republicans could do. They have an ability to be convincing to their Presidents. Honestly, yes. For all of his faults, that is something Nixon would have done. Heck, the man founded the EPA. He was not nearly as right-wing as people think. I actually think he would've done far more than JFK (who pissed off civil rights leaders by doing nothing). Nixon wasn't that conservative. It's probably how he rose in power that changes the perception of him. Although in the 60s, it's possible he could have supported some legislation. JFK's record was sorta shady. But LBJ with his connections and all that got the ball rolling. Thing is, if LBJ was running today, he'd have no prayer of winning. Eisenhower enforced Brown v Bd of Education --- the one time the federal gov't had a legitimate role there. Until that point, it was always framed as a state's right issue. The constitution allowed for legislation to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. Yet for many years, those amendments had no real enforcement. For years, nobody thought the gov't had the right to step in. They felt it was a "state's rights issues" and felt that the 10th Amendment trumped the 14th and 15th. Oh, I don't doubt that some parts of the GOP were idiotic here --- but the party as a whole has been a party all about civil rights. All about? Nah.. I wouldn't go that far. They were founded to oppose slavery, but for decades from the 1880s on-wards, they didn't do anything. Here's some more on the GOP and civil rights http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/3543 By the Progressive Era, both the Republicans and the Democrats were showing little interest in helping African-Americans. One issue that couldn't be ignored -- though the parties tried -- was the horror of lynching, which had become rampant in the post-Reconstruction South. Anti-lynching laws marked the last major civil rights issue on which Republicans were out in front. In 1920 Congressman Leonidas Dyer, a Missouri Republican from a largely black St. Louis district, introduced an anti-lynching bill. The new Republican president, Warren Harding, endorsed it. And the House passed it in January 1922, with support from all but seventeen Republicans. Yet even though they controlled the Senate as well, the GOP couldn't, or wouldn't, pull out the stops to pass the bill into law. While Majority Leader Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts supported the bill, the powerful Idaho Republican William Borah opposed it. Borah believed the measure amounted to interference with the states' autonomy and he helped Southern Democrats kill it. Eventually, Borah's states' rights ideology would come to dominate the GOP, at the expense of Lodge's racial liberalism Thing is --- there clearly was a very powerful civil rights wing --- and the Democrats get a free pass for their actions in those days. Woodrow Wilson was actually worse on race than any Republican. He basically ended ANY blacks in respectable positions in the federal gov't. Yeah, Wilson was a Virginian who grew up during the Civil War. And Wilson was quite the racist himself. So both parties around the 1920s had a lousy record on civil rights. Yes, they did. Only one, though, gets heat for it. Not really. He had the party behind him and that was all he needed. Actually, to be honest. Johnson crushed Hollings in the 1962 primary by a 66-34 margin. There'd have to be some reason why a sitting Governor would lose by such a large margin to a US Senator. Hollings did win election in a special election, first beating Donald Russell (Russell succeeded Johnson when he died. How did he pull it off? by resigning as Governor and then he was appointed to the Senate) and winning a special election over an actual Republican. Ah, the gift of the Senate appointing Senators --- for people who ever wonder why direct vote is so important. It can be, but it is nigh impossible at this point. Blacks think Republicans are racist. I don't think it's quite like that. But, Blacks won't vote for Republicans. And the reason, honestly, is that they feel we are racists because everybody says that we are. It's a constant drumbeat. but they honestly believe that the Republicans are for church burnings I must have missed that survey. The NAACP wouldn't have made those ads in Missouri back in 1998 (or was it 2000) if the view wasn't in the community. Yes, they should have. However, it's hard when even legitimate concerns (such as, say, Jesse Jackson's usage of money he gets through his "non-profit organizations --- issues ANY group should be subject to) are just painted as racism and the media won't do anything to even attempt to allow the Republicans to make a point. So basically it was too hard with the Liberal Media? Ok. And also because it's hard to successfully attack someone's methods of doing things. I'm sure it's also hard to come out and state the achievements of the party and all that. Yes, it is. The GOP gets no credit for the civil rights act. None. They get no credit for giving women the vote. Instead, we get stories about how racist it was to do the Willie Horton ads (which I will say, forever, were not racist). But it's no worse than saying a former Klansman would have been right in any era of history --- even mentioning the Civil War in that list. Including the Civil War is questionable. But it's not as bad as Lott's statement. Gotta disagree on this one. I think you mean 2001. Late Dec. 2002, it was mentioned constantly as the Democratic candidates were out belaboring the point. I'm pretty sure that Lott made his comments in November or December 2002 I know --- just remembered that the incessant bitching about it didn't start until 2003. Of course, when it WAS doing badly, it was not a story. When it's in full recovery, it IS a story about how bad it is. Odd. -=Mike ...You know, if Kerry mentioned problems back when there WERE problems, he might have a point Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted April 9, 2004 Blacks tend to be quite conservative and actually agree with Republicans on a great many issues when you go by their answers in poll after poll. Yeah, I could have sworn that there were a chunk of them who were libertarianish But if LBJ relied on just the Democrats, it would've had no opportunity, whatsoever, to win. So, they didn't flatout oppose it? You're changing your point there. Johnson, with his links, was able to pull that off with the closure vote with the help of Dirksen (71-29). (You can check this, the Democrats had complained about LBJ's tendancy to work with Eisenhower in the 1950s) http://www.africanamericans.com/PoliticalImpact.htm 'It can be argued that the Republican Party's 1964 presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, undid much of the good work that Everett Dirksen had performed in the Senate for the Republican Party in the spring of 1964. Dirksen, after all, had rounded up the critical Republican votes needed to cloture the civil rights bill. Under other conditions, these actions on Dirksen's part might have moved significant numbers of black voters to vote for the GOP candidate for president. However, Goldwater was so outspokenly against the civil rights bill, and so much more visible than Dirksen, that black voters in 1964 abandoned the Republicans and began giving near-unanimous electoral support to the Democrats.' And there is not a bigger friend to Israel out there than the Republican Party. The GOP lacks the anti-semitic wing that, sadly, the civil rights movement has become (Republicans didn't call NYC "Hymie-town"). Jewish support for the Democrats is baffling --- at least at the levels it occurs. #1 - Lieberman was running for VP with Gore that year #2 - Jewish voters tend to be quite liberal too there'll probably be a swing in the vote this year. But, you never know. As for an anti-semitic wing. That's not a wing Mike. Wing suggests much more than one comment and a few misc. Black leaders. Any book I've ever read on the man. Not fair to him as everybody was a racist. Heck, Lincoln was a racist. Uh huh. so, Truman the Racist was the one who desegregated the Military and generally supported Civil Rights. Damn him! Most Republican Presidents have been quite moderate. The only really conservative one was Reagan --- and he was very much the right man at the right time. Heck, Bush Jr. is hardly a rigid conservative, as his domestic policies indicate. and possibly that's because the biggest conservative (Goldwater) lost by 20+ points. Being a huge conservative only gets you so far. (Unless your competition sucks, then you could win an election or two) I know --- but the GOP do have the ability to tell their Presidents what is and what is not a good fight. Yeah, so they'll tell him something. Oooooooh. Heck, Goldwater was a major force in convincing Nixon that he had no shot in hell of surviving impeachment. The massive Democratic majority in the Senate would be another force to give him that impression. They have an ability to be convincing to their Presidents. Uh huh. Thing is, if LBJ was running today, he'd have no prayer of winning. If LBJ was running today, he'd still be manipulative to pull off a victory or two. But, the media wouldn't be as restrained with his personal life. For years, nobody thought the gov't had the right to step in. They felt it was a "state's rights issues" and felt that the 10th Amendment trumped the 14th and 15th. Obviously they didn't read the 9th amendment, did they? Thing is --- there clearly was a very powerful civil rights wing --- and the Democrats get a free pass for their actions in those days. So, this clearly powerful wing was able to pass how much legislation? Yes, they did. Only one, though, gets heat for it. And it's the one who's moved the least in their stance in the last 80 years. Ah, the gift of the Senate appointing Senators --- for people who ever wonder why direct vote is so important. I'd question a situation where a Governor resigned to take a Senate seat. Russell and Hollings also appear to be rivals. But, here's some more on Governor Hollings - http://www.sciway.net/hist/governors/hollings.html http://www.charleston.net/stories/081003/com_10bass.shtml and more on Russell - http://www.sc.edu/library/socar/uscs/2000/russ00.html "Voters appeared critical of the manner of Russell's appointment. During his gubernatorial campaign, Russell had promised to serve his full term as governor and not to use the position for further political advancement." And the reason, honestly, is that they feel we are racists because everybody says that we are. It's a constant drumbeat. Everybody as in 'Black Leaders' or 'Everybody'. Maybe I missed something. I don't know. The NAACP wouldn't have made those ads in Missouri back in 1998 (or was it 2000) if the view wasn't in the community. and which ads were those? I'm a Missouri resident, maybe I missed them. The GOP gets no credit for the civil rights act. How much credit does the GOP want for the Civil Rights Act when they nominated a Senator who opposed it in 1964? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
