The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

[Polishprince]

Then why oh why did the south go republican after the Civil Rights act?

Atlanta hasn't had a republican mayor since 1876, Jimmy Carter won the South in 1976...


.

They voted for a Republican at the Federal level duh...They didn't all change their stripes till later.

Bill Clinton, won a majority of Southern States in 1992 and 1996 for President, like 30 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

 

[Moonglow]

Then why oh why did the south go republican after the Civil Rights act?

Atlanta hasn't had a republican mayor since 1876, Jimmy Carter won the South in 1976...


.

They voted for a Republican at the Federal level duh...They didn't all change their stripes till later.

Bill Clinton, won a majority of Southern States in 1992 and 1996 for President, like 30 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Yes Clinton was popular...and the South voting for a dem was not unusual. Before 1964 it was very, very unusual for the South to vote for a Republican.

 

[Polishprince]

Then why oh why did the south go republican after the Civil Rights act?

Atlanta hasn't had a republican mayor since 1876, Jimmy Carter won the South in 1976...


.

They voted for a Republican at the Federal level duh...They didn't all change their stripes till later.

Bill Clinton, won a majority of Southern States in 1992 and 1996 for President, like 30 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Yes Clinton was popular...and the South voting for a dem was not unusual. Before 1964 it was very, very unusual for the South to vote for a Republican.

Was there something immoral about Republican candidates competing for votes in the South? That's what is sounds like you are saying to me.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Then why oh why did the south go republican after the Civil Rights act?

Atlanta hasn't had a republican mayor since 1876, Jimmy Carter won the South in 1976...


.

They voted for a Republican at the Federal level duh...They didn't all change their stripes till later.

Bill Clinton, won a majority of Southern States in 1992 and 1996 for President, like 30 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Yes Clinton was popular...and the South voting for a dem was not unusual. Before 1964 it was very, very unusual for the South to vote for a Republican.

Can you say manufacturing jobs?


.

 

[Polishprince]

Then why oh why did the south go republican after the Civil Rights act?

Atlanta hasn't had a republican mayor since 1876, Jimmy Carter won the South in 1976...


.

They voted for a Republican at the Federal level duh...They didn't all change their stripes till later.

Bill Clinton, won a majority of Southern States in 1992 and 1996 for President, like 30 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Yes Clinton was popular...and the South voting for a dem was not unusual. Before 1964 it was very, very unusual for the South to vote for a Republican.

Before 1964, it was also very unusual for Immigrant Honkies to vote for Republicans as well. Every voter has a right to make up their own mind, their votes aren't owned by one political party or the other.

 

[Picaro]

If the original Civil Rights Acts had included all states in it's coverage, it would never have been passed at all; Yankees weren't going to subject themselves to what they wanted to subject the South to. Nixon's 'southern strategy' was merely to not alienate southern voters with more selective legislation, while reviving some of the demands for quota systems for blacks demanded by radicals and opposed by many leading liberals. Nixon revived those quotas when the Acts came up for review under the sunset laws put into those bills, and he expanded the reach to all 50 states, forcing California, New York, and some 18 other states into dropping their literacy tests and other laws the same as the south had to do, and also forced the same school desegregation rules on northern states. The 'southern strategy' had little to do with the South per se, it had to do with ending the unfair discrimination against southern states. Northern states took it badly, of course, since their racism was 'different n stuff'; only Da Evul Southerners were to be punished.

 

[IM2]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.


2.Utter fabrication. It is simply…..
“The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

“Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.” The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’




3. Ownership of mandated government schooling has allowed the lie to persist, and be embedded in the minds of the lazy and the gullible. In actuality, there are may sources of research that would show the very opposite, and indict the Democrat Party as it should.

“…the Democratic record is hardly anything to be proud of. The first modern progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was a horrible racist who did everything in his power to strengthen Jim Crow in the federal government and leave it alone in the states despite his usual preference for expanding federal power.

…the Democratic Party’s approach to racial and ethnic politics has not really changed all that much since the 1830s; it’s just calibrated to a different audience.” The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority


4. Our Democrat colleagues, government school grads, are unfortunately illiterate. For a laugh, ask any to name a few books that have informed their views.
They are unaware that Orwell identified them in 1984 as simply accepting government propaganda of which entity with whom they are ‘always’ at war.

“…the ongoing war between the three superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia…
At the start of the book, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia. That's the political consensus, and all historic documents agree. However, Winston Smith (the protagonist) remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. Winston Smith struggles with philosophical idea of "truth". Which is more true, what everyone knows and what's in the newspapers, or the memories within his head?”
Errata Security: We've always been at war with Eastasia





The Democrats, since the origin of the nation, have been intensely biased against blacks. Now, an new stratagem designed to accrue votes of other groups....


“White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag.
…bashing straight white men, especially of the conservative kind, is very fashionable these days. You seemingly can’t escape it — you switch on cable TV, or "The View", read The Washington Post or The New York Times, and see liberal pundits verbally attack white men for this or that.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/28/white-male-bashing-trend-dangerous-saritha-prabhu-column/1778385002/




Democrats, the party of full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party….is the party of lies.

More tin foil hat lunacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.


2.Utter fabrication. It is simply…..
“The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

“Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.” The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’




3. Ownership of mandated government schooling has allowed the lie to persist, and be embedded in the minds of the lazy and the gullible. In actuality, there are may sources of research that would show the very opposite, and indict the Democrat Party as it should.

“…the Democratic record is hardly anything to be proud of. The first modern progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was a horrible racist who did everything in his power to strengthen Jim Crow in the federal government and leave it alone in the states despite his usual preference for expanding federal power.

…the Democratic Party’s approach to racial and ethnic politics has not really changed all that much since the 1830s; it’s just calibrated to a different audience.” The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority


4. Our Democrat colleagues, government school grads, are unfortunately illiterate. For a laugh, ask any to name a few books that have informed their views.
They are unaware that Orwell identified them in 1984 as simply accepting government propaganda of which entity with whom they are ‘always’ at war.

“…the ongoing war between the three superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia…
At the start of the book, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia. That's the political consensus, and all historic documents agree. However, Winston Smith (the protagonist) remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. Winston Smith struggles with philosophical idea of "truth". Which is more true, what everyone knows and what's in the newspapers, or the memories within his head?”
Errata Security: We've always been at war with Eastasia





The Democrats, since the origin of the nation, have been intensely biased against blacks. Now, an new stratagem designed to accrue votes of other groups....


“White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag.
…bashing straight white men, especially of the conservative kind, is very fashionable these days. You seemingly can’t escape it — you switch on cable TV, or "The View", read The Washington Post or The New York Times, and see liberal pundits verbally attack white men for this or that.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/28/white-male-bashing-trend-dangerous-saritha-prabhu-column/1778385002/




Democrats, the party of full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party….is the party of lies.

More tin foil hat lunacy.

Good to see you know where to come for an education.

 

[IM2]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.


2.Utter fabrication. It is simply…..
“The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

“Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.” The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’




3. Ownership of mandated government schooling has allowed the lie to persist, and be embedded in the minds of the lazy and the gullible. In actuality, there are may sources of research that would show the very opposite, and indict the Democrat Party as it should.

“…the Democratic record is hardly anything to be proud of. The first modern progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was a horrible racist who did everything in his power to strengthen Jim Crow in the federal government and leave it alone in the states despite his usual preference for expanding federal power.

…the Democratic Party’s approach to racial and ethnic politics has not really changed all that much since the 1830s; it’s just calibrated to a different audience.” The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority


4. Our Democrat colleagues, government school grads, are unfortunately illiterate. For a laugh, ask any to name a few books that have informed their views.
They are unaware that Orwell identified them in 1984 as simply accepting government propaganda of which entity with whom they are ‘always’ at war.

“…the ongoing war between the three superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia…
At the start of the book, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia. That's the political consensus, and all historic documents agree. However, Winston Smith (the protagonist) remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. Winston Smith struggles with philosophical idea of "truth". Which is more true, what everyone knows and what's in the newspapers, or the memories within his head?”
Errata Security: We've always been at war with Eastasia





The Democrats, since the origin of the nation, have been intensely biased against blacks. Now, an new stratagem designed to accrue votes of other groups....


“White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag.
…bashing straight white men, especially of the conservative kind, is very fashionable these days. You seemingly can’t escape it — you switch on cable TV, or "The View", read The Washington Post or The New York Times, and see liberal pundits verbally attack white men for this or that.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/28/white-male-bashing-trend-dangerous-saritha-prabhu-column/1778385002/




Democrats, the party of full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party….is the party of lies.

More tin foil hat lunacy.

Good to see you know where to come for an education.

You are the one getting educated loon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.


2.Utter fabrication. It is simply…..
“The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

“Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.” The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’




3. Ownership of mandated government schooling has allowed the lie to persist, and be embedded in the minds of the lazy and the gullible. In actuality, there are may sources of research that would show the very opposite, and indict the Democrat Party as it should.

“…the Democratic record is hardly anything to be proud of. The first modern progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was a horrible racist who did everything in his power to strengthen Jim Crow in the federal government and leave it alone in the states despite his usual preference for expanding federal power.

…the Democratic Party’s approach to racial and ethnic politics has not really changed all that much since the 1830s; it’s just calibrated to a different audience.” The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority


4. Our Democrat colleagues, government school grads, are unfortunately illiterate. For a laugh, ask any to name a few books that have informed their views.
They are unaware that Orwell identified them in 1984 as simply accepting government propaganda of which entity with whom they are ‘always’ at war.

“…the ongoing war between the three superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia…
At the start of the book, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia. That's the political consensus, and all historic documents agree. However, Winston Smith (the protagonist) remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. Winston Smith struggles with philosophical idea of "truth". Which is more true, what everyone knows and what's in the newspapers, or the memories within his head?”
Errata Security: We've always been at war with Eastasia





The Democrats, since the origin of the nation, have been intensely biased against blacks. Now, an new stratagem designed to accrue votes of other groups....


“White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag.
…bashing straight white men, especially of the conservative kind, is very fashionable these days. You seemingly can’t escape it — you switch on cable TV, or "The View", read The Washington Post or The New York Times, and see liberal pundits verbally attack white men for this or that.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/28/white-male-bashing-trend-dangerous-saritha-prabhu-column/1778385002/




Democrats, the party of full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party….is the party of lies.

More tin foil hat lunacy.

Good to see you know where to come for an education.

You are the one getting educated loon.

Yet here you are....again.....learning from my thread.

And you'll be back again.....I guarantee it.

You've learned to recognize your master.


See you soon.

 

[Picaro]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.


2.Utter fabrication. It is simply…..
“The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

“Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question.” The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’




3. Ownership of mandated government schooling has allowed the lie to persist, and be embedded in the minds of the lazy and the gullible. In actuality, there are may sources of research that would show the very opposite, and indict the Democrat Party as it should.

“…the Democratic record is hardly anything to be proud of. The first modern progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was a horrible racist who did everything in his power to strengthen Jim Crow in the federal government and leave it alone in the states despite his usual preference for expanding federal power.

…the Democratic Party’s approach to racial and ethnic politics has not really changed all that much since the 1830s; it’s just calibrated to a different audience.” The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority


4. Our Democrat colleagues, government school grads, are unfortunately illiterate. For a laugh, ask any to name a few books that have informed their views.
They are unaware that Orwell identified them in 1984 as simply accepting government propaganda of which entity with whom they are ‘always’ at war.

“…the ongoing war between the three superstates of Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia…
At the start of the book, Oceania is at war with Eurasia. They have always been at war with Eurasia. That's the political consensus, and all historic documents agree. However, Winston Smith (the protagonist) remembers a time five years ago when Oceania was instead at war with Eastasia. Winston Smith struggles with philosophical idea of "truth". Which is more true, what everyone knows and what's in the newspapers, or the memories within his head?”
Errata Security: We've always been at war with Eastasia





The Democrats, since the origin of the nation, have been intensely biased against blacks. Now, an new stratagem designed to accrue votes of other groups....


“White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag.
…bashing straight white men, especially of the conservative kind, is very fashionable these days. You seemingly can’t escape it — you switch on cable TV, or "The View", read The Washington Post or The New York Times, and see liberal pundits verbally attack white men for this or that.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/28/white-male-bashing-trend-dangerous-saritha-prabhu-column/1778385002/




Democrats, the party of full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party….is the party of lies.

More tin foil hat lunacy.

Good to see you know where to come for an education.

You are the one getting educated loon.

Yet here you are....again.....learning from my thread.

And you'll be back again.....I guarantee it.

You've learned to recognize your master.


See you soon.

His cries for help just keep getting more and more desperate by the day..

 

[Pogo]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.

^^ Merriam-Webster would like to borrow this post as an example of "Strawman fallacy".

The Republican Party "Southern Strategy" and the so-called "party shift/reversal" are two different things, so you're deliberately trying to cloud that issue, as befits your legacy here as Mendacious Mythologist of Miscreancy.

The Southern Strategy is a quantifiable, documentable plan articulated and re-articulated, most notably by its strategist and party chair Lee Atwater, and by a subsequent party chair who not only re-acknowledged it but apologized for it.

Atwater (1981): "You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

Ken Mehlman (2005): "By the ‘70s and into the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.’”

Well OK, he at least acknowledged it, if not apologized.

But that's a whole different thing from a "party reversal", isn't it. And of course you know this, after all where would you be as a purveyor of fine bullshit if you didn't have the actual history in hand to pervert. That is after all where lying comes in.


The "party reversal" was way earlier. And Mehlman's citation of the "'70s and '80s" is half a century off; the black vote has been in the Democratic camp since the 1930s. To explain that we go back a few more decades.

First of all, "party switch" is another deliberate mendacity. It implies something simply "switches" like the light you flip on when you enter a room. This evolution took decades but it absolutely did happen. So we'll not be using the term "switch", thank you very little.

At the turn of the (19th > 20th) century the directions of the Duopoly parties were evolving. The Republican Party, which had already experienced schisms between its radical Liberals and more conservative elements, began taking on the interests of the wealthy, the railroads, the corporations, and thus moving away from the middle class. The Democrats simultaneously courted labor, immigrants and minorities, absorbing the Populist Party and movement after some experimentation with "fusion" parties. These were exemplified by the two Williams, McKinley and Jennings Bryan, respectively. There were even bumps in the road, when McKinley was assassinated and T Roosevelt was thrust into the Presidency. Roosevelt represented the more Liberal element and sympathized with the Progressive movement, and he wasn't in the Republican script. So after his successor Taft demonstrated a move back to the corporate-conservative-wealthy element, Roosevelt opposed him, ran against him for the 1912 nomination, and in fact dominated the primaries.

But when the convention came the Party ignored Roosevelt's wins and tapped the incumbent Taft as the more representative of the way the party wanted to go. Roosevelt then took his delegates and formed his own party, popularly called the Bull Moose party, ran in the 1912 election and again easily beat Taft. But that schism wasn't enough to combat the more unified Democrats, who got Woodrow Wilson into office with under 42% of the popular vote.

After that it was all conservative wealthy upper-class rhetoric for the Republicans while the Democrats acquired loyal constituencies of labor, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and by the 1930s, blacks. THERE is your party "reversal", comprising approximately forty years.

That's got nothing to do with "1968" in Atwater's reference, which may be construed as the beginning of the Southern Strategy. That year Richard Nixon ran as the "law and order" candidate, a euphemism designed to cover both "the scary black people" and "the scary demonstrating hippies". Ultraconservative George Wallace, who had offered to switch parties four years earlier to be Barry Goldwater's running mate, ran for POTUS with an ultra-right fringe conservative party called the American Independent Party, and Strom Thurmond had already done the unthinkable and switched parties in 1964, finally acknowledging that his segregationist agenda was going nowhere with the Democrats, who had just passed the Civil Rights Act over his impassioned resistance, followed over the years by other old-line ultraconservative Southern Democrats (e.g. Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Trent Lott, eventually the infamous David Duke).

Then in 1980 Ronald Reagan literally began his campaign in Philadelphia -- not the one in Pennsylvania but the one in Mississippi where civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman and Schwermer were all murdered by Ku Klux Klan --- peppering his speech with bite-size appetizers about "states rights", the same phrase used by Wallace and Thurmond, the same phrase incessantly invoked by the Lost Cause Cult, the same ideal the Democrats stood for at the time of the Civil War, when Democrats were the conservatives and the upstart Republicans were, by virtue of advocating Abolition, the Liberals.

That would change by the end of the century, as already explained.

LEARN the above, as there will be a quiz. Your thread is now kaputulated. That will be $12.78 in labor plus $3000 in fines for lying.


/thread

 

[Picaro]

lol yet Nixon gave the black radicals everything they wanted after he won in 1968 and was inaugurated, quota systems, 'the 'War On Drugs' Charlei Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus wanted, and he not only lobbied for and renewed the Civil rights and voting rights Acts, he lobbied Congress to extend the Acts to cover the entire country. Originally they only applied to a few southern states. Doesn't fit the spin above at all, of course, but reality is never kind to ideologues and fake news peddlers.

 

[Pogo]

lol yet Nixon gave the black radicals everything they wanted after he won in 1968 and was inaugurated, quota systems, 'the 'War On Drugs' Charlei Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus wanted, and he not only lobbied for and renewed the Civil rights and voting rights Acts, he lobbied Congress to extend the Acts to cover the entire country. Originally they only applied to a few southern states. Doesn't fit the spin above at all, of course, but reality is never kind to ideologues and fake news peddlers.

Yeah Peanut, I dooooon't think "Charlei [sic] Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus" were clamoring for a "War on Drugs".

>> "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[44][45][46] for Harper's Magazine[47] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[48] ---- Weekee, The Free Encyclopedia That Is Apparently Only Accessible To The Chosen Übermembers Of The Inner Circle Or Some Lame Shit​

 

[Correll]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.

^^ Merriam-Webster would like to borrow this post as an example of "Strawman fallacy".

The Republican Party "Southern Strategy" and the so-called "party shift/reversal" are two different things, so you're deliberately trying to cloud that issue, as befits your legacy here as Mendacious Mythologist of Miscreancy.

The Southern Strategy is a quantifiable, documentable plan articulated and re-articulated, most notably by its strategist and party chair Lee Atwater, and by a subsequent party chair who not only re-acknowledged it but apologized for it.

Atwater (1981): "You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

Ken Mehlman (2005): "By the ‘70s and into the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.’”

Well OK, he at least acknowledged it, if not apologized.

But that's a whole different thing from a "party reversal", isn't it. And of course you know this, after all where would you be as a purveyor of fine bullshit if you didn't have the actual history in hand to pervert. That is after all where lying comes in.


The "party reversal" was way earlier. And Mehlman's citation of the "'70s and '80s" is half a century off; the black vote has been in the Democratic camp since the 1930s. To explain that we go back a few more decades.

First of all, "party switch" is another deliberate mendacity. It implies something simply "switches" like the light you flip on when you enter a room. This evolution took decades but it absolutely did happen. So we'll not be using the term "switch", thank you very little.

At the turn of the (19th > 20th) century the directions of the Duopoly parties were evolving. The Republican Party, which had already experienced schisms between its radical Liberals and more conservative elements, began taking on the interests of the wealthy, the railroads, the corporations, and thus moving away from the middle class. The Democrats simultaneously courted labor, immigrants and minorities, absorbing the Populist Party and movement after some experimentation with "fusion" parties. These were exemplified by the two Williams, McKinley and Jennings Bryan, respectively. There were even bumps in the road, when McKinley was assassinated and T Roosevelt was thrust into the Presidency. Roosevelt represented the more Liberal element and sympathized with the Progressive movement, and he wasn't in the Republican script. So after his successor Taft demonstrated a move back to the corporate-conservative-wealthy element, Roosevelt opposed him, ran against him for the 1912 nomination, and in fact dominated the primaries.

But when the convention came the Party ignored Roosevelt's wins and tapped the incumbent Taft as the more representative of the way the party wanted to go. Roosevelt then took his delegates and formed his own party, popularly called the Bull Moose party, ran in the 1912 election and again easily beat Taft. But that schism wasn't enough to combat the more unified Democrats, who got Woodrow Wilson into office with under 42% of the popular vote.

After that it was all conservative wealthy upper-class rhetoric for the Republicans while the Democrats acquired loyal constituencies of labor, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and by the 1930s, blacks. THERE is your party "reversal", comprising approximately forty years.

That's got nothing to do with "1968" in Atwater's reference, which may be construed as the beginning of the Southern Strategy. That year Richard Nixon ran as the "law and order" candidate, a euphemism designed to cover both "the scary black people" and "the scary demonstrating hippies". Ultraconservative George Wallace, who had offered to switch parties four years earlier to be Barry Goldwater's running mate, ran for POTUS with an ultra-right fringe conservative party called the American Independent Party, and Strom Thurmond had already done the unthinkable and switched parties in 1964, finally acknowledging that his segregationist agenda was going nowhere with the Democrats, who had just passed the Civil Rights Act over his impassioned resistance, followed over the years by other old-line ultraconservative Southern Democrats (e.g. Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Trent Lott, eventually the infamous David Duke).

Then in 1980 Ronald Reagan literally began his campaign in Philadelphia -- not the one in Pennsylvania but the one in Mississippi where civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman and Schwermer were all murdered by Ku Klux Klan --- peppering his speech with bite-size appetizers about "states rights", the same phrase used by Wallace and Thurmond, the same phrase incessantly invoked by the Lost Cause Cult, the same ideal the Democrats stood for at the time of the Civil War, when Democrats were the conservatives and the upstart Republicans were, by virtue of advocating Abolition, the Liberals.

That would change by the end of the century, as already explained.

LEARN the above, as there will be a quiz. Your thread is now kaputulated. That will be $12.78 in labor plus $3000 in fines for lying.


/thread

Atwater also said, in that same interview, that his generation of Southerns, ie the Baby Boomers, were not racist.


You believe that as much as you believe in the southern strategy? Or you going to pick and choose?

 

[Pogo]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.

^^ Merriam-Webster would like to borrow this post as an example of "Strawman fallacy".

The Republican Party "Southern Strategy" and the so-called "party shift/reversal" are two different things, so you're deliberately trying to cloud that issue, as befits your legacy here as Mendacious Mythologist of Miscreancy.

The Southern Strategy is a quantifiable, documentable plan articulated and re-articulated, most notably by its strategist and party chair Lee Atwater, and by a subsequent party chair who not only re-acknowledged it but apologized for it.

Atwater (1981): "You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

Ken Mehlman (2005): "By the ‘70s and into the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.’”

Well OK, he at least acknowledged it, if not apologized.

But that's a whole different thing from a "party reversal", isn't it. And of course you know this, after all where would you be as a purveyor of fine bullshit if you didn't have the actual history in hand to pervert. That is after all where lying comes in.


The "party reversal" was way earlier. And Mehlman's citation of the "'70s and '80s" is half a century off; the black vote has been in the Democratic camp since the 1930s. To explain that we go back a few more decades.

First of all, "party switch" is another deliberate mendacity. It implies something simply "switches" like the light you flip on when you enter a room. This evolution took decades but it absolutely did happen. So we'll not be using the term "switch", thank you very little.

At the turn of the (19th > 20th) century the directions of the Duopoly parties were evolving. The Republican Party, which had already experienced schisms between its radical Liberals and more conservative elements, began taking on the interests of the wealthy, the railroads, the corporations, and thus moving away from the middle class. The Democrats simultaneously courted labor, immigrants and minorities, absorbing the Populist Party and movement after some experimentation with "fusion" parties. These were exemplified by the two Williams, McKinley and Jennings Bryan, respectively. There were even bumps in the road, when McKinley was assassinated and T Roosevelt was thrust into the Presidency. Roosevelt represented the more Liberal element and sympathized with the Progressive movement, and he wasn't in the Republican script. So after his successor Taft demonstrated a move back to the corporate-conservative-wealthy element, Roosevelt opposed him, ran against him for the 1912 nomination, and in fact dominated the primaries.

But when the convention came the Party ignored Roosevelt's wins and tapped the incumbent Taft as the more representative of the way the party wanted to go. Roosevelt then took his delegates and formed his own party, popularly called the Bull Moose party, ran in the 1912 election and again easily beat Taft. But that schism wasn't enough to combat the more unified Democrats, who got Woodrow Wilson into office with under 42% of the popular vote.

After that it was all conservative wealthy upper-class rhetoric for the Republicans while the Democrats acquired loyal constituencies of labor, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and by the 1930s, blacks. THERE is your party "reversal", comprising approximately forty years.

That's got nothing to do with "1968" in Atwater's reference, which may be construed as the beginning of the Southern Strategy. That year Richard Nixon ran as the "law and order" candidate, a euphemism designed to cover both "the scary black people" and "the scary demonstrating hippies". Ultraconservative George Wallace, who had offered to switch parties four years earlier to be Barry Goldwater's running mate, ran for POTUS with an ultra-right fringe conservative party called the American Independent Party, and Strom Thurmond had already done the unthinkable and switched parties in 1964, finally acknowledging that his segregationist agenda was going nowhere with the Democrats, who had just passed the Civil Rights Act over his impassioned resistance, followed over the years by other old-line ultraconservative Southern Democrats (e.g. Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Trent Lott, eventually the infamous David Duke).

Then in 1980 Ronald Reagan literally began his campaign in Philadelphia -- not the one in Pennsylvania but the one in Mississippi where civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman and Schwermer were all murdered by Ku Klux Klan --- peppering his speech with bite-size appetizers about "states rights", the same phrase used by Wallace and Thurmond, the same phrase incessantly invoked by the Lost Cause Cult, the same ideal the Democrats stood for at the time of the Civil War, when Democrats were the conservatives and the upstart Republicans were, by virtue of advocating Abolition, the Liberals.

That would change by the end of the century, as already explained.

LEARN the above, as there will be a quiz. Your thread is now kaputulated. That will be $12.78 in labor plus $3000 in fines for lying.


/thread

Atwater also said, in that same interview, that his generation of Southerns, ie the Baby Boomers, were not racist.


You believe that as much as you believe in the southern strategy? Or you going to pick and choose?

It's a quote. Prove it isn't.

Besides which, nothing IN the quote suggests that strategy is targeting "baby boomers". Far from it. Nice try, absence of cigar.

Fun fact: Lee Atwater was from Atlanta. Birthplace of the Klan. What they both have in common: targeting racists for personal gain, using principles in which the targeter didn't even necessarily believe in. Neither had any principles beyond "what's in it for me", which is to say, neither had any principles. As the quote demonstrates.

 

[Correll]

1.Having no way to hide the stain of their history the Democrats, doing what they do best, lie about the other side, as an attempt to mitigate and obfuscate the Democrat record.



We’ve all seen the inveterate ersatz liars, here on the board, claim that there was some sort of reversal of the two parties, the Republican Party, created to fight slavery, and the Democrats, assiduously striving to make certain that racism remains in America, switched views. Never happened.

^^ Merriam-Webster would like to borrow this post as an example of "Strawman fallacy".

The Republican Party "Southern Strategy" and the so-called "party shift/reversal" are two different things, so you're deliberately trying to cloud that issue, as befits your legacy here as Mendacious Mythologist of Miscreancy.

The Southern Strategy is a quantifiable, documentable plan articulated and re-articulated, most notably by its strategist and party chair Lee Atwater, and by a subsequent party chair who not only re-acknowledged it but apologized for it.

Atwater (1981): "You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

Ken Mehlman (2005): "By the ‘70s and into the ‘80s and ‘90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.’”

Well OK, he at least acknowledged it, if not apologized.

But that's a whole different thing from a "party reversal", isn't it. And of course you know this, after all where would you be as a purveyor of fine bullshit if you didn't have the actual history in hand to pervert. That is after all where lying comes in.


The "party reversal" was way earlier. And Mehlman's citation of the "'70s and '80s" is half a century off; the black vote has been in the Democratic camp since the 1930s. To explain that we go back a few more decades.

First of all, "party switch" is another deliberate mendacity. It implies something simply "switches" like the light you flip on when you enter a room. This evolution took decades but it absolutely did happen. So we'll not be using the term "switch", thank you very little.

At the turn of the (19th > 20th) century the directions of the Duopoly parties were evolving. The Republican Party, which had already experienced schisms between its radical Liberals and more conservative elements, began taking on the interests of the wealthy, the railroads, the corporations, and thus moving away from the middle class. The Democrats simultaneously courted labor, immigrants and minorities, absorbing the Populist Party and movement after some experimentation with "fusion" parties. These were exemplified by the two Williams, McKinley and Jennings Bryan, respectively. There were even bumps in the road, when McKinley was assassinated and T Roosevelt was thrust into the Presidency. Roosevelt represented the more Liberal element and sympathized with the Progressive movement, and he wasn't in the Republican script. So after his successor Taft demonstrated a move back to the corporate-conservative-wealthy element, Roosevelt opposed him, ran against him for the 1912 nomination, and in fact dominated the primaries.

But when the convention came the Party ignored Roosevelt's wins and tapped the incumbent Taft as the more representative of the way the party wanted to go. Roosevelt then took his delegates and formed his own party, popularly called the Bull Moose party, ran in the 1912 election and again easily beat Taft. But that schism wasn't enough to combat the more unified Democrats, who got Woodrow Wilson into office with under 42% of the popular vote.

After that it was all conservative wealthy upper-class rhetoric for the Republicans while the Democrats acquired loyal constituencies of labor, immigrants, Catholics, Jews, and by the 1930s, blacks. THERE is your party "reversal", comprising approximately forty years.

That's got nothing to do with "1968" in Atwater's reference, which may be construed as the beginning of the Southern Strategy. That year Richard Nixon ran as the "law and order" candidate, a euphemism designed to cover both "the scary black people" and "the scary demonstrating hippies". Ultraconservative George Wallace, who had offered to switch parties four years earlier to be Barry Goldwater's running mate, ran for POTUS with an ultra-right fringe conservative party called the American Independent Party, and Strom Thurmond had already done the unthinkable and switched parties in 1964, finally acknowledging that his segregationist agenda was going nowhere with the Democrats, who had just passed the Civil Rights Act over his impassioned resistance, followed over the years by other old-line ultraconservative Southern Democrats (e.g. Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Trent Lott, eventually the infamous David Duke).

Then in 1980 Ronald Reagan literally began his campaign in Philadelphia -- not the one in Pennsylvania but the one in Mississippi where civil rights workers Chaney, Goodman and Schwermer were all murdered by Ku Klux Klan --- peppering his speech with bite-size appetizers about "states rights", the same phrase used by Wallace and Thurmond, the same phrase incessantly invoked by the Lost Cause Cult, the same ideal the Democrats stood for at the time of the Civil War, when Democrats were the conservatives and the upstart Republicans were, by virtue of advocating Abolition, the Liberals.

That would change by the end of the century, as already explained.

LEARN the above, as there will be a quiz. Your thread is now kaputulated. That will be $12.78 in labor plus $3000 in fines for lying.


/thread

Atwater also said, in that same interview, that his generation of Southerns, ie the Baby Boomers, were not racist.


You believe that as much as you believe in the southern strategy? Or you going to pick and choose?

It's a quote. Prove it isn't.

Besides which, nothing IN the quote suggests that strategy is targeting "baby boomers". Far from it. Nice try, absence of cigar.

Fun fact: Lee Atwater was from Atlanta. Birthplace of the Klan. What they both have in common: targeting racists for personal gain, using principles in which the targeter didn't even necessarily believe in. Neither had any principles beyond "what's in it for me".

1. Sure, it's a quote. Years after the fact. And with no evidence that that view was ever used for campaigning or policy.

2. So, do you believe Atwater's qoute that the South stopped being racist, with the Baby Boom generation? Or is he only an Authority when it suits you?


3. Sooo, what? Is your point that Atwater should not be trusted as a source? I'm fine with that.

 

[Picaro]

lol yet Nixon gave the black radicals everything they wanted after he won in 1968 and was inaugurated, quota systems, 'the 'War On Drugs' Charlei Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus wanted, and he not only lobbied for and renewed the Civil rights and voting rights Acts, he lobbied Congress to extend the Acts to cover the entire country. Originally they only applied to a few southern states. Doesn't fit the spin above at all, of course, but reality is never kind to ideologues and fake news peddlers.

Yeah Peanut, I dooooon't think "Charlei [sic] Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus" were clamoring for a "War on Drugs".

>> "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[44][45][46] for Harper's Magazine[47] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[48] ---- Weekee, The Free Encyclopedia That Is Apparently Only Accessible To The Chosen Übermembers Of The Inner Circle Or Some Lame Shit​

Dumbass Pogo, ignorant goof that he is, doesn't know about the heroin epidemics ravaging the black communities from the 1950's on, and black leaders screaming for police to do something about it. Nixon gave it to them, and then they now claim they didn't, and pretend to be 'all shocked n stuff' that, you know, most of the dopers and dealers in black hoods would be (GASP!!!) black ... Of course, Pogo thinks it all should be legalized, and given to school kids, along with porn and cigarettes.

Meanwhile, we can check out news sites like this infamous rightwinger Neo-Nazi crazy organization's reports, just for one source.

The Shift In Black Views Of The War On Drugs

Pogo: Just One More Dope-Addled Jack Wad who can't even do basic research before babbling some idiotic nonsense or other.

 

[Correll]

lol yet Nixon gave the black radicals everything they wanted after he won in 1968 and was inaugurated, quota systems, 'the 'War On Drugs' Charlei Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus wanted, and he not only lobbied for and renewed the Civil rights and voting rights Acts, he lobbied Congress to extend the Acts to cover the entire country. Originally they only applied to a few southern states. Doesn't fit the spin above at all, of course, but reality is never kind to ideologues and fake news peddlers.

Yeah Peanut, I dooooon't think "Charlei [sic] Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus" were clamoring for a "War on Drugs".

>> "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[44][45][46] for Harper's Magazine[47] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[48] ---- Weekee, The Free Encyclopedia That Is Apparently Only Accessible To The Chosen Übermembers Of The Inner Circle Or Some Lame Shit​

Dumbass Pogo, ignorant goof that he is, doesn't know about the heroin epidemics ravaging the black communities from the 1950's on, and black leaders screaming for police to do something about it. Nixon gave it to them, and then they now claim they didn't, and pretend to be 'all shocked n stuff' that, you know, most of the dopers and dealers in black hoods would be (GASP!!!) black ... Of course, Pogo thinks it all should be legalized, and given to school kids, along with porn and cigarettes.

Same thing happened with crack. Black leaders cried out for those who were "committing genocide" on their people to be punished, and the white politicians gave them what they wanted.

 

[Pogo]

lol yet Nixon gave the black radicals everything they wanted after he won in 1968 and was inaugurated, quota systems, 'the 'War On Drugs' Charlei Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus wanted, and he not only lobbied for and renewed the Civil rights and voting rights Acts, he lobbied Congress to extend the Acts to cover the entire country. Originally they only applied to a few southern states. Doesn't fit the spin above at all, of course, but reality is never kind to ideologues and fake news peddlers.

Yeah Peanut, I dooooon't think "Charlei [sic] Rangel and the rest of the Black Caucus" were clamoring for a "War on Drugs".

>> "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

— John Ehrlichman, to Dan Baum[44][45][46] for Harper's Magazine[47] in 1994, about President Richard Nixon's war on drugs, declared in 1971.[48] ---- Weekee, The Free Encyclopedia That Is Apparently Only Accessible To The Chosen Übermembers Of The Inner Circle Or Some Lame Shit​

Dumbass Pogo, ignorant goof that he is, doesn't know about the heroin epidemics ravaging the black communities from the 1950's on, and black leaders screaming for police to do something about it. Nixon gave it to them, and then they now claim they didn't, and pretend to be 'all shocked n stuff' that, you know, most of the dopers and dealers in black hoods would be (GASP!!!) black ... Of course, Pogo thinks it all should be legalized, and given to school kids, along with porn and cigarettes.

Link?

No of course not link. That's a job for the proctologist.

Meanwhile, we can check out news sites like this infamous rightwinger Neo-Nazi crazy organization's reports, just for one source.

The Shift In Black Views Of The War On Drugs

Ah, there's a link. Let's read it.

>> New York's first black governor rolled back the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, first passed in 1973, that disproportionately locked up African-American men.

And now Holder argues that Rockefeller-style laws should be eased at the federal level as well.

"The war on drugs is now 30, 40 years old. There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There's been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color," says Holder. <<​

Whelp, looks like both David Patterson and Eric Holder could see what was going on, pun intended, while a USMB poster cannot. Holder misstated (or understated) the motivation however, calling the consequences "unintended". We can see in the Erlichmann quote above that they were very much intended.

But let's read on and see what else your own link says.

>> Alexander declined to be interviewed for this story, but in previous public comments she has portrayed the drug war as the creation of white politicians, deliberately targeting black Americans.

"The drug war was motivated by racial politics, not drug crime. The drug war was launched as a way of trying to appeal to poor and working-class white voters, as a way to say, 'We're going to get tough on them, put them back in their place.' And 'them' was not-so-subtly defined as African-Americans." <<​

Again, confirming the description of the motivations from a White House insider. The question after all was about "strategies". You just had it laid out for you, from both ends.

Meanwhile not a word about a Charlie Rangel, under any spelling, or about "police".