Now, don't run from the essence of your original post: your post identified the reason why Southerners vote Republican is a racist Nixonian Southern Strategy.
No, my original point is that neither party has a clean bill of health on racial issues. Shocker. I know.
My refutation was that the policy that won over that population was one that resisted the far left policies assumed and championed by the Democrat Party.
No, that was your lame, OPED rebuttal. No wonder you stick to cut and paste. You can't hack it when you have to swim on your own.
You can follow the voting trends in the South which point a fairly clear picture to when the change occurred. My contention is that this was facilitated by GOP strategists who sought to capitalize on the the backlash of the Civil Rights movement and this was a driving force behind the change in voting patterns in the South. You claim this never happened, but I have provided the actual words of one of Nixon's chief strategists who said that is exactly what the plan was. Of course, you (quite hilariously) claimed he said something completely different. I guess Ann didn't prep you for that one, huh?
At any rate, your contention that the south turned Red because of hippies or abortion or whatever the fuck you claim is the actual reason (and not race) is absurd and solely your opinion. There is some debate as to if the reason was more economic and not race related, but you've never referenced that.
Either way, it is clear that the GOP, beginning in the late 60's, sought to gain the South purely on capitalizing on the blow back of civil rights.
How is that for your party of civil rights?
1. "No doubt the GOP was responsible for emancipating the slaves, thought that was hardly the reason it was created."
That is exatly the reason it was created. Learn some history.
2."... the Civil Rights act, as evidenced by simple numbers and the President who signed it into law (as opposed to Ms. Coulter's opinion) was a Democratic initiative."
There were several civil rights acts....those prior to 1964 produced greater achievements for black Americans than the '64.
a. Democrats blocked Republican-instituted civil rights bills, 1890 protection for black voters; anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938; anti-poll tax bills in 1942,1944, and 1946.
b. A far greater proportion of Republicans voted for the '64 act than did Democrats.
When we speak of Civil Rights in the 21st century, it is generally understood (by everyone that isn't a hack) that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the Watershed event. Eisenhower made some gains in '57, but that bill feel short in it's scope and reach. Even the original bill wasn't as audacious as the '64 bill. Furthermore, it was the '64 bill that caused the greatest upheaval in the south. The fallout was virtually immediate. It is why Goldwater beat LBJ in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina in the '64 presidential election (Though, with Civil Rights having passed and LBJ's shameful handling of Viet Nam, I think the country would have been better off with Goldwater).
I'll give credit to member of both parties for doing what is right. That is the difference between us, you want to pretend that the credit belongs to the GOP, which wasn't even in power at the time.
3. "...do you understand what the Southern Strategy was?"
The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
The same applies to your erroneous belief that ROTC left the Northeastern Liberal universities of their own volition.
You opinion on both of these issues is not sufficient when stacked up against the actual evidence I have provided.
Right. The "Southern Strategy" is a complete fabrication.
But most important is the Republican Party's recent record as the vehicle of white supremacy in the South, beginning with the Goldwater campaign and reaching its apex in Richard M. Nixon's ''Southern strategy'' in 1968 and 1972. Republicans appealed to Nixon Democrats (later Reagan Democrats) in the Northern suburbs, many of them ethnic voters who had left the cities to escape from blacks, with promises to crack down on welfare cheats and to bring law and order; the party also fought affirmative action.
POLITICS - THE ISSUES - G.O.P. Tries Hard to Win Black Votes, but Recent History Works Against It - An Analysis; News Analysis - NYTimes.com
4. "elements within the GOP sought to make political capital out of the backlash that followed civil rights."
Southerners voted for Republican integrationist policies.
Case in point: the idea of a ‘Southern Strategy’ as some kind of racist appeal to Southerners seems to be less than supportable when one observes the fate of segregationist Democrat Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas.
Did he suddenly became a Republican when Nixon became President??? No, he became retired when Republican Winthop Rockefeller defeated him as an integrationist, in a state with 11% Republican registration, Arkansas.
BTW, Clinton invited Faubus to his inauguration as governor, warmly embracing him.
Faubus was wrong on race issues. Most Southern politicians were at the time. Some of those Southerners came around in their later years. Some never did. People are products of the time they live in. At any rate, Faubus was still an extremely popular governor of Arkansas. If you are stating that Clinton acknowledging that was, in some form, a tacit approval of Faubus' segregationist views? That's stupid beyond belief. That's as stupid as liberals who claim that Trent Lott slapping Strom Thurmond on the back at his birthday party made him some sort of closet racist.
Your point about Faubus remaining a Democrat is well taken. But you see, this is the point that is being made (and you are doing your damndest to ignore), after Civil Rights the South slowly evolved from overwhelmingly Democratic to overwhelmingly Republican. The vast majority of Governors in the South in the last 30 years have been Republican. The south has generally voted Republican. Gone are the days of the "Southern Democrat"
5. "But what would I know about ROTC? I only was a part of it for four years."
And this proves that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Which Ivy did you attend?
With which that evicted ROTC do you have experience?
I'll assume the "not the sharpest knife" comment has something to do with my comments and not the fact that I was in ROTC.
I didn't attend an "Ivy". I believe you went to Columbia. And yet, you were not in ROTC. (and I can't imagine you had much interest in ROTC when you were a student, so the fact that you did go to an Ivy isn't terribly relevant either).
I get the nuance behind ROTC programs. I can understand why more elite schools would want to address the fact that ROTC classes are not terribly academically rigorous (Which is true. Learning the ins and outs of an OPORDER isn't exactly a high academic endeavor) and that the faculty at ROTC, Commissioned Officers (usually without Ph.D.'s) and NCOs were not on par with the usual expectations of the faculty. That was the divide. Not opposition to the Viet Nam war (which has now evolved into opposition to DADT, which will eventually evolve into something else now that DADT is kaput).
It's an urban legend. As the author starts out:
EVERYONE knows that Ivy League universities banned the Reserve Officer Training Corps from their campuses during the Vietnam War.
As he goes on to point out, it's simply not true.
Fact:
- ROTC has not been banned from any single Northeast College. If you dispute this, you should easily be able to provide documentation to the contrary.
- The Federal Government has never sanctioned any University under the Solomon Amendment.
10 U.S.C. § 983 : US Code - Section 983: Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and certain other departments and
These are the facts. You are left with your opinion, which is ill-formed and researched.
Perhaps a separate thread should be started on this.
Oh- none and none?
Doesn't stop you from swallowing every bit of propagana that the NYTimes puts on your tray,eh.
Propaganda? As opposed to your opinion and Ann Coulter snippets?
6. "you are partisan to the point of being dull."
OH....if only you had the gift of irony.
You attempt to propound a Democrat idyll in the face of multiple examples of Republican civil rights legislative endeavors.
That pretty much identifies you as a close your eyes, cover your ears, stamp your foot, partisan loyalist. Learn some history.
7. One more time, and a most telling episode: LBJ and the Democrats gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1957 bill, i.e., anyone accused of violating a person’s voting rights was guaranteed a jury trial- and, therefore, jury nullification by Democrat juries.
To fix the enforcement provisions that Democrats had gutted, Eisenhower introduced a bill to create the US Civil Rights Commission…Democrats staged the longest filibuster in history- over 125 hours. But the bill passed and was signed by Ike on May 6, 1960.
Not Democrats. Democrat. Who was that Democrat? Strom Thurmond. You do remember Strom Thurmond, right?
Now why would he become a Republican in 1964? Gee, what could have happened?
On the one hand, you want to chide the Democrats for Faubus, but you conveniently omit that the GOP picked up the Thurmond-nator.
As I said, you are partisan to the point of being dull.
Yet in '64, these same segretationist Democrats became civil rights activists???
Baloney.
No, their was just enough popular support within the party to marginalize them and over ride them. As I noted, the Democrats had a majority in the house and senate. The bill would not have passed without the Democrats.
And, you see these same Republicans as using some anti-civil rights racist 'Southern Strategy.'
Bogus.
It's a fabrication that you have been taught, and haven't the intellectual strength to overcome.
Just like Tailgunner Joe was such a Great American and the multitude of other bullshit that Ann Coulter tells you?
Irony is you lecturing anyone on intellectual strength.