GOP & minorities - You just can't make this up

And Archer any criticisms of your party? I didn't think so. :rofllol Or do you need a quote for the statement that Dems were the slaveholders?

Which, of course, as always, ignores the 40 years of "Southern Strategy" that flipped every racist, KKK, civil-rights-opponent bigot over to the Republicans in the 50's, 60's. How you love to point to what party definitions/labels were in the 1860's, vs. what they became in the 60's... Sorry...The hateful wackos are on YOUR side, and have been for 50 years.

God, I love GOTP revisionist-history and hypocrisy, I could sit and watch it for ... minutes...

Civil Rights and the History of Party Platforms. And Ann Coulter.

the Democratic Party was driven by states’ rights and the preservation of slavery as the driving force of its economy. The mere notion of preserving a traditional means of prosperity, no matter how dubious, is inherently conservative. Today, who do we identify with small government, tradition and states’ rights? Conservatives. Conversely, “big government” is a purview of liberalism. Ron Paul, the most conservative member of Congress in the last 80 years, has a stock answer to every policy question he’s asked: “Leave it up to the states.” Conservatives hold sacred the archaic 10th Amendment, which grants state governments all of the powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In 1860 and following the war, supporters of this concept identified with and voted for the Democratic Party.

In the South, party identification became locked down until the Civil Rights Act over 100 years later. Yet the South continued to be marked by conservatism. Yes, there were anti-black racists all across the political spectrum, and this was further cemented by propaganda meant to unite the North and South following the end of Reconstruction. Instead of shooting at each other across the battlefields of Gettysburg and Antietam, political leaders turned freed slaves and their descendants into the common enemy. Whites from Texas to New Hampshire would have something upon which they could agree: black people were the enemies of American society and prosperity.

Throughout the 103 years between the 13th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, liberal values shifted to the Democratic Party and conservative values shifted to the Republicans. Some Democrats in the South would remain conservative into the 1960s, even though much of the party had shifted to the liberalism of FDR, Kennedy and LBJ. Again, party identification wasn’t necessarily about the platform. The core values of Strom Thurmond’s old school Southern Dixiecrats had nothing in common with Kennedy’s New Frontier. Segregation laws all across the country were simultaneously created, enforced and opposed by both Republicans and Democrats, even though liberals tended to oppose them.

...[more]

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

[The] story completely ignores the explicit revolt by conservative Southerners against the northern liberal civil rights wing, beginning with Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman’s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.

Thurmond’s candidacy is instructive. Democratic voting was deeply acculturated among southern whites as a result of the Civil War. When southern whites began to shake loose of it, they began at the presidential level, in protest against the civil rights leanings of the national wing. It took decades for the transformation to filter down, first to Congressional-level representation (Thurmond, who Williamson mentions only in his capacity as a loyal Democrat, finally switched to the GOP in 1964), and ultimately to local-level government. The most fervently white supremacist portions of the South were also the slowest to shed their Confederate-rooted one-party traditions. None of this slowness actually proves Williamson’s contention that the decline of the Democratic Party in the South was unrelated to race.

Williamson concedes, with inadvertently hilarious understatement, that the party “went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress” — that would be the century that passed between Reconstruction and President Eisenhower’s minimalist response to massive resistance in 1957. But after this wee dry spell, the party resumed and maintained its natural place as civil rights champion. To the extent that Republicans replaced Democrats in the South, Williamson sees their support for civil rights as the cause. (“Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans.”) As his one data point, Williamson cites the victory of George Bush in Texas over a Democrat who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He correctly cites Bush’s previous record of moderation on civil rights but neglects to mention that Bush also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Go sell your Right-Wing-Crazy somewhere else... We're all full up here.

Dog was the one who wanted to go all the way back to the 1860's to say Republicans are racist. The 1960's I will aknowledge. But in the 1950's, it was Eisenhower(R) who was desegregating schools and pissing off southern Dem politicians.

And LBJ(D) who was pissing off southern Dem politicians in the 1960's. And I think it was more LBJ than the Republicans adopting a new southern strategy.

FredHayek wrote: And Archer any criticisms of your party? I didn't think so. :rofllol Or do you need a quote for the statement that Dems were the slaveholders?

Uh Fred, I don't constantly claim that I have criticized my own party like you have....

Interesting though that now the parties have changed sides.......now the Republicans are the party of the old white guy, and the Democrats are attracting the women, the blacks, the hispanics, and the gays. See a trend here Fred? The GOP should have learned from history don't ya think? They can't rest on ancient history to get them the votes.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: And Archer any criticisms of your party? I didn't think so. :rofllol Or do you need a quote for the statement that Dems were the slaveholders?

Uh Fred, I don't constantly claim that I have criticized my own party like you have....

Interesting though that now the parties have changed sides.......now the Republicans are the party of the old white guy, and the Democrats are attracting the women, the blacks, the hispanics, and the gays. See a trend here Fred? The GOP should have learned from history don't ya think? They can't rest on ancient history to get them the votes.

I think you're making a huge broad brush generalization here archer. And I don't see much outrage over Obama's recent cabinet appointments of old whiite guys. Maybe it's because historically, more white men have been interested in politics as a percentage than women and minorities. I think the media has done a great job over the years in spreading the idea that Democrats are looking out for their best interests even though the Democratic policies have kept them down and more dependant than they need to be. It's now at the point where blacks get shamed and castigated for being a Republican even though so many blacks have ideology that is more in line with conservatives than liberals. And who wants to be called an "Uncle Tom" if you are a proud black? jmo

The GOP can always change. Look at two of the new Senators, an African-American Republican from the Deep South, and a Sen. Cruz from Texas.

Archer, do you remember how many black Senators the Democrats have? Please name this multitude. I don't see any, do you? Those Dems are all talk and no walk. :rofllol

FredHayek wrote: The GOP can always change. Look at two of the new Senators, an African-American Republican from the Deep South, and a Sen. Cruz from Texas.

Archer, do you remember how many black Senators the Democrats have? Please name this multitude. I don't see any, do you? Those Dems are all talk and no walk. :rofllol

Two? really two of them? Oh I am impressed.

Personally I don't care as much about how many women or minorities are elected by my party as I do about their track record. I don't see the democrats trying to outlaw abortion, or limit contraception do you?

And how many Republicans have outlawed abortion since Roe V. Wade? None. Tilting at windmills, just like Dems thinking that banning guns will prevent gun deaths.

You have to be kidding, whining about the name of a room where the GOP is meeting. A quick Google search finds this all over the lefty blogs, I expect it on the Huff & Puff shortly. Seems to me that the extreme left is a bit worried that some of the minorities are going to wake up and see that the GOP is much closer to their true beliefs.
Visit this site

Grady wrote: You have to be kidding, whining about the name of a room where the GOP is meeting. A quick Google search finds this all over the lefty blogs, I expect it on the Huff & Puff shortly. Seems to me that the extreme left is a bit worried that some of the minorities are going to wake up and see that the GOP is much closer to their true beliefs.
Visit this site

Yeah, like the selectively-edited garbage about "more people are killed with hammers than assault rifles" was all over the Rightie blogs. Spare me your hypocrisy.