The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination. So all you needed to block was 33% plus one. Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one). That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign. That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?
Racism mostly.
View attachment 144951
You can prove your allegations or is this just a pathetic attempt to win the discussion by throwing out the race card?
*****SMILE*****
It is funny to see these racist apologists at work. It has been known for DECADES that the kkk walked hand in hand with Democrat Party. Over 50% of the Party at the 1924 DNC refused to include a condemnation of the KKK in their Party Platform. One of the TWO leading candidates was the son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson - a racist of the most vile sorts -and a DEMOCRAT. That son-in-law was the KKK backed candidate. FDR was a vile racist - and the leftist spin that 'well blacks started moving to the Democrat party' after FDR holds no water. Blacks continually re-elected Wallace to be governor. Getting votes from the blacks in no way proves that the person is not an avowed racist.
Those of us that LIVED through the MLK days are very well aware of the strong NATIONAL TIES of the DEMOCRATS to overt racism and the kkk.
The revisionists at the NYT and WaPo are very active (including pogo and his ilk) at rewriting that history, attempting to call it 'inaccurate' and 'untrue'.
For those that LIVED the history, we know the TRUTH.
It was Dwight David Eisenhower who FORCIBLY REMOVED racist segregation from the public school systems - after a Supreme Court decision overturned a decades old DEMOCRAT SUPREME COURT decision that held that 'segregation was Constitutional'. It was not. Never was.
It was Dwight David Eisenhower and other REPUBLICANS that started the end of segregation, fought it at every turn, weeded it out at every turn in the United States Military.
The revisionists love to state 'It was LBJ that signed the Civil Rights Act'. LBJ FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TOOTH AND NAIL - we students of the past know EXACTLY why LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
IT WAS REPUBLICANS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that originated,fought for, and passed the Civil Right Act - in both the House and Senate.
IT WAS DEMOCRATS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that fought against,attempted to fillibuster, to undermine, to KILL the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
The Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act was due to CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS of two sections that instituted even MORE RACISM into our society - problems that exist to this day.
Goldwater was no racist -
LBJ WAS ONE OF THE MOST RACIST PRESIDENTS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN. Those of us who were there, especially those of that lived, grew up, and worked in TEXAS know the REAL truth about that piece of scum. Just mention DCRC or simply DUVAL COUNTY to those that were there, and we can tell you precisely what that POS did.
So, my advise, Damaged Eagle - don't reply to pogo - he is a disruptor, revisionist, and a liar. Already demonstrated aptly through many previous posts. Reply's only feed his ego, disrupt, and give him a further platform.
BTW: As predicted, the disruptor quickly stooped to ad hominen and labeled me as being a "kkklown". So damned predictable - he is nothing but a Saul Alinsky disciple - well skilled in the art of the schmear.
My posts prove otherwise - quite clearly.
The ability of scum to generate to lies, half-truths, and attacks far exceed the ability of any to rebut. That is also in the "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky - phrased differently, but lying to them is an acceptable and useful tactic. They employ it fully and non-stop.
So don't even attempt to rebut - simply post the TRUTH, as you have been doing.
View attachment 145000
Pogo is easy to handle.
*****CHUCKLE*****
>> Pogo is easy to handle.
... and the latest half-truther .... paperview .... post #448
Was Martin Luther King, Jr. A Republican?
Many have testified that Martin Luther King, Jr. made a point to hold no concrete political affiliation. In a 1958 interview, King said “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses…And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”
Arguments For King As A Republican
First and foremost, the word of King’s family states that he was, indeed, a Republican. In
A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK’s Legacy, Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., states, “My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or ‘Daddy King’, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.” During King’s time, most African Americans were, indeed, Republicans. This is because the Republican Party was the party fighting against racism, while the Democratic Party contained groups such as the KKK, trying to undermine civil rights movements in any way possible. For this reason, it is highly probable that King was more supportive of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.
The fact that the political ideals of the Republican Party were more closely aligned with King’s than those of the Democrats is supported by the politicians of Georgia during King’s time. Fletcher Thompson, who represented the Atlanta area in Congress from 1966-72, explained, “Most of the blacks in the late 1950s and at least up to 1960 were Republican. Our party was sympathetic to them and the Democrats were the ones enforcing ‘Jim Crow’ laws and segregation.” Others have noted that King seemed to support the creation of new voters for the Republican Party. New York Times political reporter Tom Wicker noted that, as the 1960 election approached, “the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had volunteered to lead a voter registration drive among blacks, which King thought would produce many new Republican voters.” Much of the media at the time speculated on this issue as well, with The Reporter Magazine stating “It is open secret among many Negroes that the Rev. Martin Luther King, if he were to speak out on the subject, would probably indicate a preference for [Republican Richard] Nixon over [Democratic nominee John] Kennedy,” in October 1960. However, this claim would later be challenged by the author of King’s biography.
Arguments For King As A Democrat
While the political platforms of the time suggest that King could have been a Republican, there is evidence to the contrary as well. Democrats have family testimony to back their story as well. King’s son, Martin Luther King III, has stated, “It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican.” Many who have researched King extensively agree with this statement. David Garrow, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning biography of King, stated “It’s simply incorrect to call Dr. King a Republican.” Garrow stated that King absolutely held some Republicans, including Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, in high regard, and was incredibly critical of Lyndon Johnson. However, Garrow also stated that he has little doubt that King voted for Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson in 1964.
In his autobiography, King speaks out against the 1964 Republican National Convention. He states, “The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”
While this does suggest that King was dismayed at the direction of the Republican Party, his statements seem shocked and dismayed. Therefore, it is possible that King was a believer in Republican ideals up until this point, where the ‘64 convention and Senator Goldwater showed him a new, extreme, and different side to the Republican Party.
end excerpt;
Now, THAT is called a balanced presentation of history. Excerpted from:
Martin Luther King, Jr. And The Republican Party | Republican Views
Unlike the half-truth and out of context misology of paperview. As stated previously:
Ability to lie, twist, defame, and half-truth it outweighs time in the universe for rebuttal. *s*
Others view Goldwater quite differently - what is important to note is any analysis of King's views of LBJ - whom (as briefly stated) King opposed.
It is interesting to review Jackie Robinson's interactions with the Republican party during this time- several site's have very good coverage and discussion of that - a black conservative site I found was particularly good at covering that. Can't remember the site name - it's been a few weeks or so.
And in conclusion, a telegram to DDE after Arkansas ....
https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov...l_rights_little_rock/Little_Rock_Telegram.pdf
