GOP: Not just a Party of "Old White Men."

[Yukon]

There are Jews, and Negros who support the GOP. There are even pro-choice people who support the GOP. Just not too many.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, since my interests are more in line with the people that create the wealth on the factory floor, rather than the people that are parasitical, and sponge off of them, the Republican Party has nothing to show me.

It has turned into a party for the very rich, pandering to the very people that have created the debacle that is economically damaging so many of the people that I work with. And a higher percentage of these people are non-white, than the parasitical class.

That is hysterical. We live in a country where a small percentage of the people bear the overwhelming burden for providing the revenue to run this country and you're calling them "parasites."

It's hard to find very recent figures but here's a link about percentages of all federal taxes paid except estate taxes and gift levies in 1979 and 2000:

Distribution of Federal Taxes and Income, 1979-2000

I look for that kind of thing because the standard line spouted when people talking about the "rich" paying the overwhelming preponderance of the taxes is that "everybody" pays payroll taxes.

Anyway, as of 2000, the top 20% paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes except estate and gift taxes while the bottom 20% paid 1.1%. So who are the parasites? Who is living in this country while paying almost nothing towards its operation?

The top 40% paid 84.1% while the bottom 40% paid 5.9%. Who are the parasites? Who is getting the "free-er" ride?

And I think we can agree that including estate and gift taxes would just shift the imbalance more towards the top 20 or 40%.

This is the same old demagougery against "the rich." We've established a system in this country where the majority of the people get the benefits offered by the federal government while somebody else (the "rich") pays for it. It's a sick system. It's real easy to vote for politicians to increase the scope of government, to increase government spending, etc.; when you're not the one who's going to pay for it.

Here's a cite with more recent data on taxes and income, thru 2005. There may be even more recent data, but I don't have a link to it.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_wtoc.pdf

 

[JohnStOnge]

This is to further clarify the extent to which the Democratic Party depends on overwhelming support among "minorities" on a national level.

If Obama had enjoyed "only" the extent of support among non Whites as McCain enjoyed among Whites in 2008 (a 55-43% edge), McCain would've won the popular vote by 52 - 47%. The "break even" point for Obama in terms of percent non White vote was between 65 and 66 percent. At 65 percent of the non White vote, Obama would've lost the popular vote to McCain. So, in order to win the majority of the popular vote, the Democratic candidate needed to maintain about 2/3 of the non White vote.

And that was in a really bad year for Republicans.

The point is this: The Democrats are the Party of non Whites. Unless they're idiots, they know where their bread is buttered. They know that, in order to compete for and/or maintain power, they need to maintain support among an overwhelming majority of non Whites.

So that's the way it is. Yet we have the Republican Party criticized as being the party of "White Men" when White Males voted Republican by an average of 57-41% (and, by the way, the majority of White females voted Republican too) but no mention of the Democratic Party being the Party of "minorities" when minorities voted Democrat by 80-18%.

 

[Red Dawn]

This is to further clarify the extent to which the Democratic Party depends on overwhelming support among "minorities" on a national level.

If Obama had enjoyed "only" the extent of support among non Whites as McCain enjoyed among Whites in 2008 (a 55-43% edge), McCain would've won the popular vote by 52 - 47%. The "break even" point for Obama in terms of percent non White vote was between 65 and 66 percent. At 65 percent of the non White vote, Obama would've lost the popular vote to McCain. So, in order to win the majority of the popular vote, the Democratic candidate needed to maintain about 2/3 of the non White vote.

And that was in a really bad year for Republicans.

The point is this: The Democrats are the Party of non Whites. Unless they're idiots, they know where their bread is buttered. They know that, in order to compete for and/or maintain power, they need to maintain support among an overwhelming majority of non Whites.

So that's the way it is. Yet we have the Republican Party criticized as being the party of "White Men" when White Males voted Republican by an average of 57-41% (and, by the way, the majority of White females voted Republican too) but no mention of the Democratic Party being the Party of "minorities" when minorities voted Democrat by 80-18%.

why does it piss you off that Democrats routinely draw more support from women, blacks, jews, and hispanics?

Aren't they every bit as american as white christian men?

Or do they live in the anti-american parts of america?

 

[Yurt]

This is to further clarify the extent to which the Democratic Party depends on overwhelming support among "minorities" on a national level.

If Obama had enjoyed "only" the extent of support among non Whites as McCain enjoyed among Whites in 2008 (a 55-43% edge), McCain would've won the popular vote by 52 - 47%. The "break even" point for Obama in terms of percent non White vote was between 65 and 66 percent. At 65 percent of the non White vote, Obama would've lost the popular vote to McCain. So, in order to win the majority of the popular vote, the Democratic candidate needed to maintain about 2/3 of the non White vote.

And that was in a really bad year for Republicans.

The point is this: The Democrats are the Party of non Whites. Unless they're idiots, they know where their bread is buttered. They know that, in order to compete for and/or maintain power, they need to maintain support among an overwhelming majority of non Whites.

So that's the way it is. Yet we have the Republican Party criticized as being the party of "White Men" when White Males voted Republican by an average of 57-41% (and, by the way, the majority of White females voted Republican too) but no mention of the Democratic Party being the Party of "minorities" when minorities voted Democrat by 80-18%.

why does it piss you off that Democrats routinely draw more support from women, blacks, jews, and hispanics?

Aren't they every bit as american as white christian men?

Or do they live in the anti-american parts of america?

why do you lie and murder people?

 

[Pyrite]

This is to further clarify the extent to which the Democratic Party depends on overwhelming support among "minorities" on a national level.

If Obama had enjoyed "only" the extent of support among non Whites as McCain enjoyed among Whites in 2008 (a 55-43% edge), McCain would've won the popular vote by 52 - 47%. The "break even" point for Obama in terms of percent non White vote was between 65 and 66 percent. At 65 percent of the non White vote, Obama would've lost the popular vote to McCain. So, in order to win the majority of the popular vote, the Democratic candidate needed to maintain about 2/3 of the non White vote.

And that was in a really bad year for Republicans.

The point is this: The Democrats are the Party of non Whites. Unless they're idiots, they know where their bread is buttered. They know that, in order to compete for and/or maintain power, they need to maintain support among an overwhelming majority of non Whites.

So that's the way it is. Yet we have the Republican Party criticized as being the party of "White Men" when White Males voted Republican by an average of 57-41% (and, by the way, the majority of White females voted Republican too) but no mention of the Democratic Party being the Party of "minorities" when minorities voted Democrat by 80-18%.

So then, please explain to me how the interests of a black man, or an hispanic man, or an asian man, are counter to my interests. Explain why I should consider non-whites my political enemies. What laws are being advocated that severely disadvantage me in favor of them? How are these people seeking to opress me? or are you arguing that I should seek to oppress them, and seek my own advantage at their disadvantage?

 

[Indiana Oracle]

If the Reps decided to hand out more money to the dependent underclass LBJ helped cement, over the next two full generations that growing group of people may start to split off from the Dems. May. The Dems manage this in a thorough and professional manner.

Race and underclass competition will not get the Reps back into a favorable position. Ideas and criticisms around good governance and fiscal responsibility will. After they clean house.

 

[Bfgrn]

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.


One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.


But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.


Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."



Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.


And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.


It all flip-flops.

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.


voting tally on the bill

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

del, you're not being forthright...

Your math HIDES some crucial facts... the Dixiecrats voted against the bill, but there was no such thing as a Dixiecan, a southern Republican in Congress...

ONE southern Senator
TEN southern Congressman

Votes by party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.


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: 1-20
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 45-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5


The bill was introduced by a Democrat, President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963 and it was pushed through Congress by a Democrat...President Lyndon Baines Johnson...

The 1964 Civil Rights Bill was basically a reenactment of the Civil War. It had nothing to do with party...those north of the Mason-Dixon line supported the bill and those south of the Mason-Dixon line opposed it...

You claim the bill wouldn't have passed without Republicans...there's a slender thread of truth there, but it was only after the bill was weakened to persuade northern Republicans in the Senate to support it; they needed enough votes to break the southern block's filibuster.

Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster.

Conservative Republicans didn't write the bill, it was spearheaded by JFK. The bill was introduced by President Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963...

And it was only after JFK's assassination the bill got legs because LBJ PUSHED the bill down Congress' throat...and used his famous LBJ CHARM...LOL

 

[Yukon]

Why are Conservatives so upset that Obama was elected by the people?

 

[del]

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.


One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.


But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.


Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."



Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.


And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.


It all flip-flops.

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.


voting tally on the bill

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

del, you're not being forthright...

Your math HIDES some crucial facts... the Dixiecrats voted against the bill, but there was no such thing as a Dixiecan, a southern Republican in Congress...

ONE southern Senator
TEN southern Congressman

Votes by party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.


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: 1-20
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 45-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5


The bill was introduced by a Democrat, President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963 and it was pushed through Congress by a Democrat...President Lyndon Baines Johnson...

The 1964 Civil Rights Bill was basically a reenactment of the Civil War. It had nothing to do with party...those north of the Mason-Dixon line supported the bill and those south of the Mason-Dixon line opposed it...

You claim the bill wouldn't have passed without Republicans...there's a slender thread of truth there, but it was only after the bill was weakened to persuade northern Republicans in the Senate to support it; they needed enough votes to break the southern block's filibuster.

Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster.

Conservative Republicans didn't write the bill, it was spearheaded by JFK. The bill was introduced by President Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963...

And it was only after JFK's assassination the bill got legs because LBJ PUSHED the bill down Congress' throat...and used his famous LBJ CHARM...LOL

spin it any ay you want. the bill, in any form, would not have passed without the support of the republicans. full stop. end of story. lbj wasn't going to get anymore "peckers in his pocket" from the dems no matter how hard he twisted arms.

give my best to sheets byrd when you see him. you partisan twits deserve each other.

 

[Bfgrn]

spin it any ay you want. the bill, in any form, would not have passed without the support of the republicans. full stop. end of story. lbj wasn't going to get anymore "peckers in his pocket" from the dems no matter how hard he twisted arms.

give my best to sheets byrd when you see him. you partisan twits deserve each other.

Wow del, why the asshole mode?

PARTISAN del? Are we to believe Republicans and conservatives south of the Mason Dixon lines in the '60's were civil rights activists?

 

[del]

spin it any ay you want. the bill, in any form, would not have passed without the support of the republicans. full stop. end of story. lbj wasn't going to get anymore "peckers in his pocket" from the dems no matter how hard he twisted arms.

give my best to sheets byrd when you see him. you partisan twits deserve each other.

Wow del, why the asshole mode?

PARTISAN del? Are we to believe Republicans and conservatives south of the Mason Dixon lines in the '60's were civil rights activists?

clearly, republicans supported the bill or it wouldn't have passed. or is this about bashing the south in general?
strangely enough a southern democrat and a northern republican did more to advance civil rights in the mid 20th century than all the liberal dems in the north combined. can you guess who they are?

thanks for the kind words.

 

[Bfgrn]

spin it any ay you want. the bill, in any form, would not have passed without the support of the republicans. full stop. end of story. lbj wasn't going to get anymore "peckers in his pocket" from the dems no matter how hard he twisted arms.

give my best to sheets byrd when you see him. you partisan twits deserve each other.

Wow del, why the asshole mode?

PARTISAN del? Are we to believe Republicans and conservatives south of the Mason Dixon lines in the '60's were civil rights activists?

clearly, republicans supported the bill or it wouldn't have passed. or is this about bashing the south in general?
strangely enough a southern democrat and a northern republican did more to advance civil rights in the mid 20th century than all the liberal dems in the north combined. can you guess who they are?

thanks for the kind words.

Yes del, a fair amount of northern Republicans supported the bill, but, what I said is that it was a north/south issue, not party affiliation debate and because there were almost no southern republicans, and almost no southerners voted for the bill, your percentages are misleading at BEST...

I would guess LBJ and Everett Dirksen...

 

[del]

spin it any ay you want. the bill, in any form, would not have passed without the support of the republicans. full stop. end of story. lbj wasn't going to get anymore "peckers in his pocket" from the dems no matter how hard he twisted arms.

give my best to sheets byrd when you see him. you partisan twits deserve each other.

Wow del, why the asshole mode?

PARTISAN del? Are we to believe Republicans and conservatives south of the Mason Dixon lines in the '60's were civil rights activists?

clearly, republicans supported the bill or it wouldn't have passed. or is this about bashing the south in general?
strangely enough a southern democrat and a northern republican did more to advance civil rights in the mid 20th century than all the liberal dems in the north combined. can you guess who they are?

thanks for the kind words.

Yes del, a fair amount of northern Republicans supported the bill, but, what I said is that it was a north/south issue, not party affiliation debate and because there were almost no southern republicans, and almost no southerners voted for the bill, your percentages are misleading at BEST...

I would guess LBJ and Everett Dirksen...

my percentages are what they are. i didn't approach it as a north /south issue so that's the disconnect. my apologies.

good guess, but harry truman (D-MO) signed an order integrating the armed forces in 1948, and dwight eisenhower (R-PA) completed the implementation of that order, sent troops from the 101st airborne div to ensure the court order integrating little rock high school was successfully implemented and was the first president since reconstruction to meet with black leaders to discuss civil rights.

Harry Truman and Civil Rights

Eisenhower Memorial Commission

 

[William Joyce]

please explain to me how the interests of a black man, or an hispanic man, or an asian man, are counter to my interests. Explain why I should consider non-whites my political enemies. What laws are being advocated that severely disadvantage me in favor of them?

Are you serious? There's 50K in government money for a contract. You have a company to bid the job. A black-owned company does, too. Government makes rule saying you lose because you're white.

God, was that a serious question?

 

[JohnStOnge]

why does it piss you off that Democrats routinely draw more support from women, blacks, jews, and hispanics?

Aren't they every bit as american as white christian men?

Or do they live in the anti-american parts of america?

You are missing the point. Republicans are criticized for being "the party of Old, White, Males." Are those "Old, White Males" not every bit as American as anybody else who is American? Why is it that it's "bad" to be a Party that's supported by a modest majority of Whites but not "bad" to be a Party that depends heavily on maintaining overwhelming majority support among non Whites? Can you not see what the question is?

 

[manu1959]

why does it piss you off that Democrats routinely draw more support from women, blacks, jews, and hispanics?

Aren't they every bit as american as white christian men?

Or do they live in the anti-american parts of america?

You are missing the point. Republicans are criticized for being "the party of Old, White, Males." Are those "Old, White Males" not every bit as American as anybody else who is American? Why is it that it's "bad" to be a Party that's supported by a modest majority of Whites but not "bad" to be a Party that depends heavily on maintaining overwhelming majority support among non Whites? Can you not see what the question is?

because being white old and rich is a bad thing now......the dems (all rich white old men btw) claim they are the champion of the poor and colored and they will take form the rich whote old men and give it to the poor and colored.....

 

[Yurt]

why does it piss you off that Democrats routinely draw more support from women, blacks, jews, and hispanics?

Aren't they every bit as american as white christian men?

Or do they live in the anti-american parts of america?

You are missing the point. Republicans are criticized for being "the party of Old, White, Males." Are those "Old, White Males" not every bit as American as anybody else who is American? Why is it that it's "bad" to be a Party that's supported by a modest majority of Whites but not "bad" to be a Party that depends heavily on maintaining overwhelming majority support among non Whites? Can you not see what the question is?

this has been a very successful campaign lie for the dems. clinton was the first "black" president, they know that if they keep up the mantra that the gop is just a bunch of white dudes, then throw in rich and old, well good lordy, theys just a bunch of old slave owners. interestingly, the dems rarely bring up the number of white women....

they have done well in the propaganda war, i mean a party whose leaders are old white males has pulled one of the greatest cons of all time, right next to satan, in convincing others that no old white male exist in the dem party

 

[Bfgrn]

why does it piss you off that Democrats routinely draw more support from women, blacks, jews, and hispanics?

Aren't they every bit as american as white christian men?

Or do they live in the anti-american parts of america?

You are missing the point. Republicans are criticized for being "the party of Old, White, Males." Are those "Old, White Males" not every bit as American as anybody else who is American? Why is it that it's "bad" to be a Party that's supported by a modest majority of Whites but not "bad" to be a Party that depends heavily on maintaining overwhelming majority support among non Whites? Can you not see what the question is?

this has been a very successful campaign lie for the dems. clinton was the first "black" president, they know that if they keep up the mantra that the gop is just a bunch of white dudes, then throw in rich and old, well good lordy, theys just a bunch of old slave owners. interestingly, the dems rarely bring up the number of white women....

they have done well in the propaganda war, i mean a party whose leaders are old white males has pulled one of the greatest cons of all time, right next to satan, in convincing others that no old white male exist in the dem party

LOL... a bunch of EXCUSES... the Democrats don't need to engage in "propaganda" when the GOP has pea brains like this...

Limbaugh plays "Barack The Magic Negro" on his show

Chip Saltsman, vying for the RNC chair distributed a 41-song CD to members whose votes he seeks. Among the songs was a parody of a March 2007 David Ehrenstein Op-Ed titled "Barack The Magic Negro"

THEN...all anyone had to do is WATCH the two conventions and campaign events to SEE the monochrome crowds at the GOP convention and events and the rainbow crowds at the Democratic convention and events...

 

[DamnYankee]

The reason so many whites switched from Democrat to Republican, especially in the South, was the Civil Rights Act, passed by a Democratic congress and signed by a Democratic president who said, "Gentlemen, we have lost the South for a generation."

I'd say it's been at least two generations.


One of my favorite games, when watching Republican events on TV, is to count the black people. It's a great game because even little kids can do it.


But every twenty minutes or so, someone inevitably messes it up by asking, "are we on four or five?"

Then we have to start over.


Plus, by the time we get to twelve or thirteen someone says, "no, we counted him already. They keep showing him."



Personally, as a liberal I admit that the Republican party is not really racist. Clearly Bush, McCain, Romney and others are not bigots. The problem is actually that the true racists, like the KKK types, are Republicans and everyone knows it. And the Klan still flies that Confederate flag, along with tons of white Southerners who vote Republican, so it's kind of hard to separate the two.


And the biggest irony is that the Republican Party was the one who destroyed the South, burning those Confederate flags.

Confederates were Democrats.


It all flip-flops.

i suggest that you read up on the history of the passage of the civil rights act of 2964 to avoid further embarassment.


voting tally on the bill

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

as you can see, a far higher proportion of republicans than democrats supported the bill. if not for the support of the republicans, it wouldn't have passed.

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

the civil rights act would still be waiting to be passed if it had been left up to the democrats. read some history.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics is perception. Whatever the "facts" may be, it is the perception in the south that democrats were responsible for passage of the civil rights act.

Fairmount is correct that it was the perception that democrats were reponsible for passage of the civil rights act that caused the south to go from a solid democratic region to a solid republican region.

you can cite facts till you are blue in the face, but, it will not overcome perception.

LOL! See, therein lies the problem so often in politics. There are those who attempt to rewrite history (facts) to suit their agenda (perception) hoping that the majority will mindlessly follow. Sad thing is, it generally works - as we've just seen.