Tea Party Movement Evolves Into Political Force With Eye Toward 2010

The party that opposed civil rights, the guys carrying those signs during the early 1960's who were opposed to desegregation were Democrats.
During the early 1960's, most blacks that voted (were allowed to vote) were republicans.
Propaganda alert.

In Washington, there was no such thing as a southern Republican in the 1960's...do you really believe southern conservatives were for civil rights? You need to learn human nature...

Civil Rights Act of 1964

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 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

As i was pointing out that parties change, and that in the past the two party system wasn't full of partisan parrots like now, I appreciate the help in making my point.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The facts: During the early 1960's, most blacks that voted (were allowed to vote) were Democrats.


The course of history was changed in the 1960s. And in this case, I am talking about African Americans’ preference for the Democratic and Republican parties. Consider these statistics from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies:
black-party-identification-vote-1956-1964-v3.gif


The phone call

This excerpt from the book Last Chance: The Political Threat to Black America, which was written by Lee A. Daniels, talks of how these three men were linked in changing the face of African American politics:

In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America’s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

A swift series of moves by the state’s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state’s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the sate’s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, “If there’s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.”

It’s likely that Kennedy did not at that moment realize the political implications of that call. Ever the pragmatist, he had resisted the pleas of several aides throughout the campaign that he take bolder public stands on civil rights issues. The telephone call came because one aide caught him late at night after a hard day of campaigning and staff meetings as he was about to turn in. The aide, Harris Wofford, pitched it as just a call to calm King’s fearful spouse. Kennedy replied, “What the hell. That’s a decent thing to do. Why not? Get her on the phone.”

King was soon released, unharmed, due to a groundswell of pressure directed by blacks and whites in numerous quarters toward Georgia officials (Robert F. Kennedy himself, who was managing his brother’s campaign called the judge who sentenced King to prison). At the time, the white media paid little attention to the call, which suited the Kennedys fine. But it likely transformed the black vote. King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn’t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

(But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: “I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is… He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase, and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.”

From that moment on, JFK’s bond with blacks, despite his initial tepid support for the movement, was sealed. His assassination, less than six months after proposing what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, cemented his place of honor among blacks: for years afterward, inexpensive commemorative plates with his likeness were ubiquitous in the homes of blacks across the country. And when his successor, Lyndon Baines Johnson, took up the civil rights cause and pushed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act through Congress, black voters moved in massive numbers to the Democratic party.
 
Ahh, so now the Democrats who opposed slavery and civil rights were actually Republicans. Keep em coming............


well the Democrats who opposed slavery were not Republican but the ones who opposed civil rights became republicans after the President from the Democratic party passed the civil rights act of 1964.

Nice concept of history there Titanic......LOL
 
Nader, Perot, Baldwin, Badnarik, brown, Marrou ect, the list goes on and on.
Just because you were only paying attention to the two candidates in the past elections doesn't mean they were not there.




Other than Perot how did those guys do in the election. 1% .5% give me a BREAK they are not even close to this ASTRO TURF "movment" Perot had a genuine GRASS ROOTS movement.

Most of us that voted for any of the above candidates knew they could not win- it was a protest vote.
How the Tea Party does in the elections remains to be seen. As much attention as they are getting, it appears a sure thing they will make a difference.
The ridicule will only serve to strengthen the movement. Keep it up, it helps to galvanize people against the miserable two party system full of crooks.
I would be surprised if many incumbents are elected to congress next year. I Think it will be due to the Tea Party.



You are being COMPLETELY dishonest to compare the "ASTRO TURF" Tea Parties to Perot's TRUE "GRASS ROOTS" support which actually gave birth to the short lived but REAL Reform party. Perot offered SOLUTIONS to Americas problems which are FAR WORSE than they were in '92. He offered a REAL third party alternative the Tea Parties offer NOTHING but paranoid RAGE!

The Tea Parties are NOTHING but an anti-Obama anti-Democrat movement and comprise ONLY the most radical FRINGE of the Republican party. If they were genuine they would offer SOLUTIONS and they would have protested Bush and the Republicans just as much as Obama.

Did the Republicans address Imigration reform.......NO!!!
Did the Republicans address DEFICT SPENDING......NO!!!
Did the Republicans pass ANY kind of significant reform......NO!!!!
So where were the Tea Party protests during the Bush admin?

I would have gone to my local Tea Party because I have some strongly held conservative ideals but after I saw an interview with the local organiser I KNEW it would be nothing more than an anti-Obama rally with some of the most EXTREME FRINGE element of the Republican party. The 9/11 "TRUTHERS", the FEMA camp "CONSPIRICY" protesters, and the "BIRTHERS". If those FRINGE of the FRINGE continue to get air time then you will LOSE moderates AND Independents.
 
Perot was not a historical antecedent to the Teabaggers. That is revisionism of the worst sort.

No?

Why not?

I don't view the current political goals of the TPP as any different than Perot's Reform Party: In 1992, he emerged as an independent candidate for president, expressing serious concern over the national debt. In 1995 Perot founded a new national political party, the Reform party, as an alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties.


Why can't the Tea Bag protesters be compared to the REFORM party and Perot's run for President? PEROT OFFERED SOLUTIONS the Tea Bag movment offers NOTHING. Do the Tea Partiers have a CANDIDATE? NO. Do the Tea Partiers offer SOLUTIONS? NO! They reperesent the MOST EXTREME of the FRINGE of the Republican party, why do you think that Republican candidates don't embrace them?
 
i realized there is a more current example of a third party candidate. Joe Lieberman. When his own party wanted to ditch him in the primaries he dropped them and ran as an independent-and won.
Yeah, it didn't actually happen that way. He LOST the democratic primary, and won the general because all the Republicans in Connecticutt voted for him in the General. Joe Lieberman is not an "independant". He's among the most entrenched, corrupt, status-quo politician in Washington.
Before the election, on here and most places in general, among the party faithful, Joe was washed up, finished, not to be taken seriously.
How did that work out for the Democrats?
Except that he's on countless committees, a senior member of leadership, and a former vice presidential candidate. Lieberman has never been considered washed up.
 
i realized there is a more current example of a third party candidate. Joe Lieberman. When his own party wanted to ditch him in the primaries he dropped them and ran as an independent-and won.
Yeah, it didn't actually happen that way. He LOST the democratic primary, and won the general because all the Republicans in Connecticutt voted for him in the General. Joe Lieberman is not an "independant". He's among the most entrenched, corrupt, status-quo politician in Washington.
Before the election, on here and most places in general, among the party faithful, Joe was washed up, finished, not to be taken seriously.
How did that work out for the Democrats?
Except that he's on countless committees, a senior member of leadership, and a former vice presidential candidate. Lieberman has never been considered washed up.



The Democrats did their best to keep him in the fold and the son of a bitch stabbed the Democratic party in the back.....MULTIPLE TIMES...They can't strip him of his commitees soon enough.
 
i realized there is a more current example of a third party candidate. Joe Lieberman. When his own party wanted to ditch him in the primaries he dropped them and ran as an independent-and won.
Yeah, it didn't actually happen that way. He LOST the democratic primary, and won the general because all the Republicans in Connecticutt voted for him in the General. Joe Lieberman is not an "independant". He's among the most entrenched, corrupt, status-quo politician in Washington.
Before the election, on here and most places in general, among the party faithful, Joe was washed up, finished, not to be taken seriously.
How did that work out for the Democrats?
Except that he's on countless committees, a senior member of leadership, and a former vice presidential candidate. Lieberman has never been considered washed up.



The Democrats did their best to keep him in the fold and the son of a bitch stabbed the Democratic party in the back.....MULTIPLE TIMES...They can't strip him of his commitees soon enough.

I think we're on the same page on this one.
 

Forum List

Back
Top