MSNBC 1,000 word ode to LBJ: Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist

[DudleySmith]

the middle classes suddenly got all interested in scholarship and skool when warming a seat in one exempted them from the draft. That's when Jr.Colleges sudenly got popular and the endless cycles of grade inflation set in to the point now, when a drooling lobotimized 5 year old can graduate Harvard with a doctorate

We were still suffering from WWII industrialism — kids were smoking too much pot and doing uneducated stupid shit at work.

You didn't want to be drafted in those days, and you really didn't want to serve as a military officer either — that was even worse despite nominally higher pay and better quarters, and there were other officers over you with higher rank — and for obvious reasons you were not allowed to hang out with "the guys" either — military rank did not admit of safety in numbers especially in that situation in those days, and officers' quarters have always been first degree murder territory.

lol rubbish. I come from a military family. None of that is true.

 

[harmonica]

Caro's book is full of innuendo and a bad attempt at a smear job. Johnson was helping out black colleges and black people and latinos long before it was popular to do so, mostly outside of his Congressional district as well, where it did no good re votes or support, from the beginnings of his political career as a secretary for Senator, which is also in Caro's book. I have the whole series. Caro found no evidence of anything, as a reading of the book will demonstrate.

Left wing commies hate him for Viet Nam and resisting their commie masters' takeover of that country as well as stepping in to back Israel when the French bailed out of the ME, cutting off the Soviet Union's attempt to make it a satellite of theirs, and this also led to the defeat of their Arab client states in 1967 and 1973, which the Arabs blamed on the Soviets for not supplying them with the latest tanks and rockets, which was bullshit, they lost because they were stupid, but nonetheless the rift never healed, as as we know the Soviets collapsed in 1973, largely due to the effects of Johnson's policies in Viet Nam, Africa, and the ME. The Soviet's propaganda war against Johnson has been taken up by the false flag operatives on the right wing now, which is even more shallow and feckless than the European left's campaigns of the 1960's and 1970's.

.....LBJ didn't know what to do with Nam = we should never have been there--it was unwinnable/etc..and I'm not a left winger
'''''it looks like to me we’re getting into another Korea,” he said in a voice of foreboding. “I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damn mess.”''
and this is just more proof/quotes/etc on it added to my thread

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

...the Arabs DID have mucho Soviet support in 1973---that's why one of the keys to the Israeli military--the IAF --- took a beating ...the SAMS were killing them...and they had the Russian AT rockets

 

[TheParser]

According to what I have read:

1. LBJ won his (first?) Senate seat by electoral fraud.

2. He was, of course, a Caucasian gentleman who lived in Texas at a time when people used many words that are beyond the pale today.

3. Like many other people (both in the South & the North), he held views about certain folks that are now considered "racist." (Kindly remember what the man from Delaware said about school busing back in the day.)

4. He seemed genuinely interested in passing those Civil Rights laws.

5. Some Dems feel that the man from Delaware is a changed man as was LBJ. The man from Delaware is issuing all kinds of executive orders that favor two certain groups.

 

[DudleySmith]

According to what I have read:

1. LBJ won his (first?) Senate seat by electoral fraud.

2. He was, of course, a Caucasian gentleman who lived in Texas at a time when people used many words that are beyond the pale today.

3. Like many other people (both in the South & the North), he held views about certain folks that are now considered "racist." (Kindly remember what the man from Delaware said about school busing back in the day.)

4. He seemed genuinely interested in passing those Civil Rights laws.

5. Some Dems feel that the man from Delaware is a changed man as was LBJ. The man from Delaware is issuing all kinds of executive orders that favor two certain groups.

Politics is a dirty business period. You can whine about #1 for every candidate for office since the first colonial officials were voted for.

#2, many words were beyond the pale then, too, which is why the vernacular of the lower types wasn't used in polite company then either.

#3, prejudice is not racism.

#4, yes, he was, and there was little in for him to support black institutions politically over his entire political career; he did it because he didn't like seeing people kicked while they were down, regardless of what color they were. this a characteristic of Texas liberals that was absent in northern liberals, which is why it was a southerner and Texan who finally pushed the Acts and bills through, while both Democrats and Republicans managed to do nothing but compromise it and drag it along piecemeal. The legislation included sunset laws as well, thanks to LBJ; it was Nixon who made them apply to the rest of the U.S.states after the time limits expired in 1970; California and Ne York still had the literacy tests and whatever.

I'm also of the opinion it's time to bring those back; the reasons for suspending the have long passed. Black racists and commies don't like it, but tough, they serve a good purpose, as would requiring civics tests.

#5 LBJ was a populist, and remained one his entire life. He never changed his core beliefs, and in fact hoped to extend the New Deal and improve it..

 

[DudleySmith]

.....LBJ didn't know what to do with Nam = we should never have been there--it was unwinnable/etc..and I'm not a left winger
'''''it looks like to me we’re getting into another Korea,” he said in a voice of foreboding. “I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damn mess.”''
and this is just more proof/quotes/etc on it added to my thread

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

Doesn't matter since it was the right strategic thing to do at the time; it was the major cause of the Soviets going bankrupt in 1973; the Israeli wars helped with that too, along with driving a wedge between the Soviets and the Arab terrorist regimes. It calmed down our SEATO allies and kept them from bailing and falling prey to Red Chinese and Soviet manipulations. Most wars are going to be like that with nuclear weapons threats dominating strategies. The U.S. wasn't used to that type of warfare, is all, and still had the delusions that they were all going to be a couple of years long and everybody got a big parade and and great job when they came home. American military had no experience with that type of warfare, so of course it 'was a mess' to them; that doesn't make it wrong to stay in it. Same with Korea. It made the commie look a lot worse than it did us, and both wars were right on China's borders, yet they barely held on.

Taking over North Viet Nam would have been a bad strategy, far worse than just keeping the South in business.

Define 'winnable'; did the Soviets win anything? They collapsed under the strain of their support for NV. Most of their puppet regimes bailed on them and started sucking up to the U.S. after 1973.

...the Arabs DID have mucho Soviet support in 1973---that's why one of the keys to the Israeli military--the IAF --- took a beating ...the SAMS were killing them...and they had the Russian AT rockets

And the Arabs blamed their losses on the Soviets. That was of course just face saving bullshit on their part, but it caused a rift nonetheless, which also had effects on Soviet sponsored rebellions in Africa at the time as well.

 

[justinacolmena]

a drooling lobotimized 5 year old can graduate Harvard with a doctorate.

What are you doing to the little ones who believe in Jesus?

 

[DudleySmith]

a drooling lobotimized 5 year old can graduate Harvard with a doctorate.

What are you doing to the little ones who believe in Jesus?

A heinous crime; I'm not doing anything to get them away from their fucked up parents.

 

[harmonica]

.....LBJ didn't know what to do with Nam = we should never have been there--it was unwinnable/etc..and I'm not a left winger
'''''it looks like to me we’re getting into another Korea,” he said in a voice of foreboding. “I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damn mess.”''
and this is just more proof/quotes/etc on it added to my thread

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

Doesn't matter since it was the right strategic thing to do at the time; it was the major cause of the Soviets going bankrupt in 1973; the Israeli wars helped with that too, along with driving a wedge between the Soviets and the Arab terrorist regimes. It calmed down our SEATO allies and kept them from bailing and falling prey to Red Chinese and Soviet manipulations. Most wars are going to be like that with nuclear weapons threats dominating strategies. The U.S. wasn't used to that type of warfare, is all, and still had the delusions that they were all going to be a couple of years long and everybody got a big parade and and great job when they came home. American military had no experience with that type of warfare, so of course it 'was a mess' to them; that doesn't make it wrong to stay in it. Same with Korea. It made the commie look a lot worse than it did us, and both wars were right on China's borders, yet they barely held on.

Taking over North Viet Nam would have been a bad strategy, far worse than just keeping the South in business.

Define 'winnable'; did the Soviets win anything? They collapsed under the strain of their support for NV. Most of their puppet regimes bailed on them and started sucking up to the U.S. after 1973.

...the Arabs DID have mucho Soviet support in 1973---that's why one of the keys to the Israeli military--the IAF --- took a beating ...the SAMS were killing them...and they had the Russian AT rockets

And the Arabs blamed their losses on the Soviets. That was of course just face saving bullshit on their part, but it caused a rift nonetheless, which also had effects on Soviet sponsored rebellions in Africa at the time as well.

.....plain and simple---not winnable for the US...doesn't matter what the Soviets were doing or did--our objective was to keep the South independent -- 50,000 dead and many more wounded/etc - for nothing

????????!!!!!!!!!!!what????? the Vietnam war was the right thing to do????!!!!!! right strategic thing to do?????????!!!!!!!! bankrupt the USSR???!!!!
....lunacy

50,000 DEAD and many more wounded.......
..the objective was NOT to bankrupt the USSR---and where is the proof it did???!!!!!
....so, we needed to bankrupt the USSR???!!!----etc???!!!
hey pal --all the $$$$$$$ we spent on Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc was WASTED---we fkd ourselves also financially--when it could've gone to helping the US economy.

.......and we financed France's war ...goddamn ---MUCHO BILLIONS wasted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not too mention American and Asian lives WASTED


------the quotes below make it even MORE IDIOTIC to have gotten involved in Vietnam
''''''with France’s war effort largely funded and supplied by the United States'''''.
First Indochina War | 1946–1954

'''''''3. Despite some misgivings about backing a colonial power, the US began to support the French in Vietnam. Washington aided the French during their war with the Viet Minh, investing almost $3 billion in the years prior to 1954'''''''
.https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/us-involvement-in-vietnam/#:~:text=Despite%20some%20misgivings%20about%20backing,direct%20US%20involvement%20in%20Vietnam.

 

[harmonica]

.....LBJ didn't know what to do with Nam = we should never have been there--it was unwinnable/etc..and I'm not a left winger
'''''it looks like to me we’re getting into another Korea,” he said in a voice of foreboding. “I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damn mess.”''
and this is just more proof/quotes/etc on it added to my thread

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

Doesn't matter since it was the right strategic thing to do at the time; it was the major cause of the Soviets going bankrupt in 1973; the Israeli wars helped with that too, along with driving a wedge between the Soviets and the Arab terrorist regimes. It calmed down our SEATO allies and kept them from bailing and falling prey to Red Chinese and Soviet manipulations. Most wars are going to be like that with nuclear weapons threats dominating strategies. The U.S. wasn't used to that type of warfare, is all, and still had the delusions that they were all going to be a couple of years long and everybody got a big parade and and great job when they came home. American military had no experience with that type of warfare, so of course it 'was a mess' to them; that doesn't make it wrong to stay in it. Same with Korea. It made the commie look a lot worse than it did us, and both wars were right on China's borders, yet they barely held on.

Taking over North Viet Nam would have been a bad strategy, far worse than just keeping the South in business.

Define 'winnable'; did the Soviets win anything? They collapsed under the strain of their support for NV. Most of their puppet regimes bailed on them and started sucking up to the U.S. after 1973.

...the Arabs DID have mucho Soviet support in 1973---that's why one of the keys to the Israeli military--the IAF --- took a beating ...the SAMS were killing them...and they had the Russian AT rockets

And the Arabs blamed their losses on the Soviets. That was of course just face saving bullshit on their part, but it caused a rift nonetheless, which also had effects on Soviet sponsored rebellions in Africa at the time as well.

..what did we get by bankrupting the USSR? which cost us 50,000 LIVES plus more wounded

 

[Pogo]

People like .... felons... drug addicts...... the mentally deranged....

People like .... felons... drug addicts...... the mentally deranged....

Didn't bother to look up the "Gun Control Act of 1968" didja

People "like" that. We don't like being railroaded on the cattle cars without due process of law.

That's OK, I did. I always do. I figure whatever claptrap you knuckledraggers try to plop in here, there's a shitload left out. And sure enough, there was.

I'm not a Nazi or a liberal either. You left out a shit-ton of civil rights along with the guns you stole from us and the hired-ass mercenary cops and soldiers you have shooting and killing unarmed and disarmed civilians whom you have blacklisted and prohibited from possession firearms in your vicious red-light district court system.

Clearly you have a fertile, if not substance-enhanced, imagination. I have no "blacklist", I have no powers of "prohibition", I've "stolen" a grand total of Nothing, and I've hired zero "mercenary cops OR soldiers", so whatever toxic fumes you're operating on might best be restored to the bottle and/or aerosol can, K?

 

[whitehall]

LBJ's "great society" was a failure that cost billions and tore Black families apart but he was a democrat so that makes him a hero.

 

[DudleySmith]

.....LBJ didn't know what to do with Nam = we should never have been there--it was unwinnable/etc..and I'm not a left winger
'''''it looks like to me we’re getting into another Korea,” he said in a voice of foreboding. “I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damn mess.”''
and this is just more proof/quotes/etc on it added to my thread

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

Doesn't matter since it was the right strategic thing to do at the time; it was the major cause of the Soviets going bankrupt in 1973; the Israeli wars helped with that too, along with driving a wedge between the Soviets and the Arab terrorist regimes. It calmed down our SEATO allies and kept them from bailing and falling prey to Red Chinese and Soviet manipulations. Most wars are going to be like that with nuclear weapons threats dominating strategies. The U.S. wasn't used to that type of warfare, is all, and still had the delusions that they were all going to be a couple of years long and everybody got a big parade and and great job when they came home. American military had no experience with that type of warfare, so of course it 'was a mess' to them; that doesn't make it wrong to stay in it. Same with Korea. It made the commie look a lot worse than it did us, and both wars were right on China's borders, yet they barely held on.

Taking over North Viet Nam would have been a bad strategy, far worse than just keeping the South in business.

Define 'winnable'; did the Soviets win anything? They collapsed under the strain of their support for NV. Most of their puppet regimes bailed on them and started sucking up to the U.S. after 1973.

...the Arabs DID have mucho Soviet support in 1973---that's why one of the keys to the Israeli military--the IAF --- took a beating ...the SAMS were killing them...and they had the Russian AT rockets

And the Arabs blamed their losses on the Soviets. That was of course just face saving bullshit on their part, but it caused a rift nonetheless, which also had effects on Soviet sponsored rebellions in Africa at the time as well.

..what did we get by bankrupting the USSR? which cost us 50,000 LIVES plus more wounded

You don't have much of a sense of what is going on, so you just adopt a simplistic ideological view based on right wing delusions of isolationism.

 

[DudleySmith]

LBJ's "great society" was a failure that cost billions and tore Black families apart but he was a democrat so that makes him a hero.

Actually it was working great until it started getting rolled back after 1968. The infaltion genereated by uyour oil shortage hoaxers in the oil industry and the start of the globalist scams and floods of illegal aliens right wingers loved so dearly did all that damage your Hive propagandists keep telling you to blame on LBJ. Most of that Libertoon crap was sponsored by an oil man who got rich helping Joseph Stalin develop his oil industry after all, a ommie front operating under a 'free markets ' scam. The commies knew how to sucker greedy naricissisitc dumbasses with stupid rhetoric and idiot meme catering to their egoes and mindless self-indulgence. You've been dumbed down to the point even morons like AOC and corrupt insane criminals like China Joe can hand you tards your asses in elections now, yu have so little clue to what is going on. Can't even keep degenerates out of your own grade schools, you're so helpless..

 

[harmonica]

.....LBJ didn't know what to do with Nam = we should never have been there--it was unwinnable/etc..and I'm not a left winger
'''''it looks like to me we’re getting into another Korea,” he said in a voice of foreboding. “I don’t think it’s worth fighting for and I don’t think we can get out. And it’s just the biggest damn mess.”''
and this is just more proof/quotes/etc on it added to my thread

Vietnam War was unwinnable

..we are talking REALITY--not nuking anyone....not invading the north like the Russians and US did to Germany --that wasn't going to happen--even if they did invade the North, they couldn't stay there forever..... ..first--the French lost--and after we gave them MILLIONS$ and with all their...

www.usmessageboard.com

Doesn't matter since it was the right strategic thing to do at the time; it was the major cause of the Soviets going bankrupt in 1973; the Israeli wars helped with that too, along with driving a wedge between the Soviets and the Arab terrorist regimes. It calmed down our SEATO allies and kept them from bailing and falling prey to Red Chinese and Soviet manipulations. Most wars are going to be like that with nuclear weapons threats dominating strategies. The U.S. wasn't used to that type of warfare, is all, and still had the delusions that they were all going to be a couple of years long and everybody got a big parade and and great job when they came home. American military had no experience with that type of warfare, so of course it 'was a mess' to them; that doesn't make it wrong to stay in it. Same with Korea. It made the commie look a lot worse than it did us, and both wars were right on China's borders, yet they barely held on.

Taking over North Viet Nam would have been a bad strategy, far worse than just keeping the South in business.

Define 'winnable'; did the Soviets win anything? They collapsed under the strain of their support for NV. Most of their puppet regimes bailed on them and started sucking up to the U.S. after 1973.

...the Arabs DID have mucho Soviet support in 1973---that's why one of the keys to the Israeli military--the IAF --- took a beating ...the SAMS were killing them...and they had the Russian AT rockets

And the Arabs blamed their losses on the Soviets. That was of course just face saving bullshit on their part, but it caused a rift nonetheless, which also had effects on Soviet sponsored rebellions in Africa at the time as well.

..what did we get by bankrupting the USSR? which cost us 50,000 LIVES plus more wounded

You don't have much of a sense of what is going on, so you just adopt a simplistic ideological view based on right wing delusions of isolationism.

..you haven't provided any proof-just babble ......so we want to spend 50,000 lives to bankrupt a country????!!!! lunacy

 

[Turtlesoup]

Caro's book is full of innuendo and a bad attempt at a smear job. Johnson was helping out black colleges and black people and latinos long before it was popular to do so, mostly outside of his Congressional district as well, where it did no good re votes or support, from the beginnings of his political career as a secretary for Senator, which is also in Caro's book. I have the whole series. Caro found no evidence of anything, as a reading of the book will demonstrate.

Left wing commies hate him for Viet Nam and resisting their commie masters' takeover of that country as well as stepping in to back Israel when the French bailed out of the ME, cutting off the Soviet Union's attempt to make it a satellite of theirs, and this also led to the defeat of their Arab client states in 1967 and 1973, which the Arabs blamed on the Soviets for not supplying them with the latest tanks and rockets, which was bullshit, they lost because they were stupid, but nonetheless the rift never healed, as as we know the Soviets collapsed in 1973, largely due to the effects of Johnson's policies in Viet Nam, Africa, and the ME. The Soviet's propaganda war against Johnson has been taken up by the false flag operatives on the right wing now, which is even more shallow and feckless than the European left's campaigns of the 1960's and 1970's.

Johnson was using race as a political tool ......

Except it wouldn't have benefited him politically, even in the 1960's, so that spin fails. Republicans on the other hand had always taken the black vote for granted and did little or nothing for them until the Democrats started getting black votes under FDR, then they suddenly got all concerned about creating the appearance of 'action' and trying to get their votes back. Every voting and civil rights bill could have passed without a single GOP voting on them, despite the bloc of Democrats who voted against them. In Texas the Democratic vote was over 2 to 1 against Johnson's bills; he would have gained a lot more by opposing them than voting for them from the 1930's on, even if he ran in 1968,

Johnson was the welfare president----he specifically targeted the black voting block despite the dems before and during being the KKK party as well.......Johnson and his buddied created hate and used to hate for voting---as they also used welfare to buy votes and funnel money around.

 

[whitehall]

LBJ's "great society" was a failure that cost billions and tore Black families apart but he was a democrat so that makes him a hero.

Actually it was working great until it started getting rolled back after 1968. The infaltion genereated by uyour oil shortage hoaxers in the oil industry and the start of the globalist scams and floods of illegal aliens right wingers loved so dearly did all that damage your Hive propagandists keep telling you to blame on LBJ. Most of that Libertoon crap was sponsored by an oil man who got rich helping Joseph Stalin develop his oil industry after all, a ommie front operating under a 'free markets ' scam. The commies knew how to sucker greedy naricissisitc dumbasses with stupid rhetoric and idiot meme catering to their egoes and mindless self-indulgence. You've been dumbed down to the point even morons like AOC and corrupt insane criminals like China Joe can hand you tards your asses in elections now, yu have so little clue to what is going on. Can't even keep degenerates out of your own grade schools, you're so helpless..

You can whine about big oil and make a ludicrous charge that right wingers supported illegal aliens but the fact remains that LBJ's "great society" cost billions and had the opposite effect on Black families than intended. Democrat leader Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "LBJ said the Great Society was his greatest speech but he was the only one to see it that way".

 

[Pogo]

Caro's book is full of innuendo and a bad attempt at a smear job. Johnson was helping out black colleges and black people and latinos long before it was popular to do so, mostly outside of his Congressional district as well, where it did no good re votes or support, from the beginnings of his political career as a secretary for Senator, which is also in Caro's book. I have the whole series. Caro found no evidence of anything, as a reading of the book will demonstrate.

Left wing commies hate him for Viet Nam and resisting their commie masters' takeover of that country as well as stepping in to back Israel when the French bailed out of the ME, cutting off the Soviet Union's attempt to make it a satellite of theirs, and this also led to the defeat of their Arab client states in 1967 and 1973, which the Arabs blamed on the Soviets for not supplying them with the latest tanks and rockets, which was bullshit, they lost because they were stupid, but nonetheless the rift never healed, as as we know the Soviets collapsed in 1973, largely due to the effects of Johnson's policies in Viet Nam, Africa, and the ME. The Soviet's propaganda war against Johnson has been taken up by the false flag operatives on the right wing now, which is even more shallow and feckless than the European left's campaigns of the 1960's and 1970's.

Johnson was using race as a political tool ......

Except it wouldn't have benefited him politically, even in the 1960's, so that spin fails. Republicans on the other hand had always taken the black vote for granted and did little or nothing for them until the Democrats started getting black votes under FDR, then they suddenly got all concerned about creating the appearance of 'action' and trying to get their votes back. Every voting and civil rights bill could have passed without a single GOP voting on them, despite the bloc of Democrats who voted against them. In Texas the Democratic vote was over 2 to 1 against Johnson's bills; he would have gained a lot more by opposing them than voting for them from the 1930's on, even if he ran in 1968,

Johnson was the welfare president----he specifically targeted the black voting block despite the dems before and during being the KKK party as well.......Johnson and his buddied created hate and used to hate for voting---as they also used welfare to buy votes and funnel money around.

KKK has never had a "party". And as noted upthread, LBJ was the first POTUS since Ulysses Grant to prosecute the Klan, which as the OP article notes was something he had to light a fire under J. Edgar Hoover to do, Hoover being permanently mired in the Red Scare daze that he never climbed out of.

The Klan in fact burned a cross on LBJ's lawn in the 1950s and his conflicts with them went all the way back to childhood, when his father, having denounced the Klan in the Texas State House, got threatened by the KKK with retaliation. LBJ's father and uncles sequestered the kids in the basement and stayed up all night with shotguns. The Klan wimped out.

Fun facts.

 

[DudleySmith]

Caro's book is full of innuendo and a bad attempt at a smear job. Johnson was helping out black colleges and black people and latinos long before it was popular to do so, mostly outside of his Congressional district as well, where it did no good re votes or support, from the beginnings of his political career as a secretary for Senator, which is also in Caro's book. I have the whole series. Caro found no evidence of anything, as a reading of the book will demonstrate.

Left wing commies hate him for Viet Nam and resisting their commie masters' takeover of that country as well as stepping in to back Israel when the French bailed out of the ME, cutting off the Soviet Union's attempt to make it a satellite of theirs, and this also led to the defeat of their Arab client states in 1967 and 1973, which the Arabs blamed on the Soviets for not supplying them with the latest tanks and rockets, which was bullshit, they lost because they were stupid, but nonetheless the rift never healed, as as we know the Soviets collapsed in 1973, largely due to the effects of Johnson's policies in Viet Nam, Africa, and the ME. The Soviet's propaganda war against Johnson has been taken up by the false flag operatives on the right wing now, which is even more shallow and feckless than the European left's campaigns of the 1960's and 1970's.

Johnson was using race as a political tool ......

Except it wouldn't have benefited him politically, even in the 1960's, so that spin fails. Republicans on the other hand had always taken the black vote for granted and did little or nothing for them until the Democrats started getting black votes under FDR, then they suddenly got all concerned about creating the appearance of 'action' and trying to get their votes back. Every voting and civil rights bill could have passed without a single GOP voting on them, despite the bloc of Democrats who voted against them. In Texas the Democratic vote was over 2 to 1 against Johnson's bills; he would have gained a lot more by opposing them than voting for them from the 1930's on, even if he ran in 1968,

Johnson was the welfare president----he specifically targeted the black voting block despite the dems before and during being the KKK party as well.......Johnson and his buddied created hate and used to hate for voting---as they also used welfare to buy votes and funnel money around.

KKK has never had a "party". And as noted upthread, LBJ was the first POTUS since Ulysses Grant to prosecute the Klan, which as the OP article notes was something he had to light a fire under J. Edgar Hoover to do, Hoover being permanently mired in the Red Scare daze that he never climbed out of.

The Klan in fact burned a cross on LBJ's lawn in the 1950s and his conflicts with them went all the way back to childhood, when his father, having denounced the Klan in the Texas State House, got threatened by the KKK with retaliation. LBJ's father and uncles sequestered the kids in the basement and stayed up all night with shotguns. The Klan wimped out.

Fun facts.

One of his main enemies in the 1950's and 1960's was Robert Byrd.

He was going against over two thirds of the Texas House delegation in his lobbying and sponsoring Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, so the premise he was doing it just for personal political gain is just fake news and lies, same reason for the current wave of bullshit smears of FDR by right wing sociopaths. They aren't really any different than left wing loons when it comes to fake news. Anyone smart enough to Google scholar the votes will readily note this, but even with a southern democart bloc voting against the bills, they would have passed anyway without a single GOP vote at all; they could have killed some of them by voting against them, but they played no role in passing them.

 

[DudleySmith]

LBJ's "great society" was a failure that cost billions and tore Black families apart but he was a democrat so that makes him a hero.

Actually it was working great until it started getting rolled back after 1968. The infaltion genereated by uyour oil shortage hoaxers in the oil industry and the start of the globalist scams and floods of illegal aliens right wingers loved so dearly did all that damage your Hive propagandists keep telling you to blame on LBJ. Most of that Libertoon crap was sponsored by an oil man who got rich helping Joseph Stalin develop his oil industry after all, a ommie front operating under a 'free markets ' scam. The commies knew how to sucker greedy naricissisitc dumbasses with stupid rhetoric and idiot meme catering to their egoes and mindless self-indulgence. You've been dumbed down to the point even morons like AOC and corrupt insane criminals like China Joe can hand you tards your asses in elections now, yu have so little clue to what is going on. Can't even keep degenerates out of your own grade schools, you're so helpless..

You can whine about big oil and make a ludicrous charge that right wingers supported illegal aliens but the fact remains that LBJ's "great society" cost billions and had the opposite effect on Black families than intended. Democrat leader Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "LBJ said the Great Society was his greatest speech but he was the only one to see it that way".

Rubbish. LBJ and Humphrey and Moynihan fought the radicals tooth and nail. It was Nixon who handed black radicals billions on a platter. It was the left wing radicals that drove all three out of office.

 

[marvin martian]

Caro's book is full of innuendo and a bad attempt at a smear job. Johnson was helping out black colleges and black people and latinos long before it was popular to do so, mostly outside of his Congressional district as well, where it did no good re votes or support, from the beginnings of his political career as a secretary for Senator, which is also in Caro's book. I have the whole series.

And before politics, as a teacher with Texas Latinos.

Fun fact: LBJ was the first POTUS since Ulysses Grant to prosecute the Klan. The link mentions, however briefly, that he cajoled J. Edgar Hoover into going after KKK while Hoover was still mired in "duh communists" of the Red Scare daze.

How sad what you DemoKKKrats have done with that legacy: