The GOP's New Fake Racial History

[NYcarbineer]

Southern Democrats AND Southern Republicans in the first 60 some years of the 20th century were almost universally segregationists,

regardless of what other positions they held on other issues,

because that is how you got elected in the South.

You could be an FDR Democrat, for example, on every other issue, whether pro-labor, or populist, or a New Dealer, whatever,

and still be a segregationist Democrat in the South. That was how the Democratic coalition existed,

up until, as someone pointed out, Harry Truman began the process of breaking down that coalition.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Democrats who loved Jim Crow and hated the 'niggar' were and are conservatives who became Republicans.

uh huh for a moment lets pretend that mass baptism true, and this is exemplified in influecne, deeds and words, how exactly? what party platform reflects Jim Crow etc.?

facts. just the fact's ma'am

In the 1948 election, after Harry Truman had desegregated the Army, a group of Southern Democrats known as Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party in reaction to the inclusion of a civil rights plank in the party's platform.

This followed a floor fight led by Minneapolis mayor (and soon-to-be senator) Hubert Humphrey. The disaffected Democrats formed the States' Rights Democratic, or Dixiecrat Party, and nominated Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for president.

Thurmond carried four southern states in the general election; Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

The main plank of the States' Rights Democratic Party was maintaining segregation and Jim Crow in the South.

The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered.

In 1964, Thurmond was one of the first conservative southern Democrats to switch to the Republican Party.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So one dead Cracker does a party make.

Need I remind you of Robert Byrd???

 

[daveman]

It shows. Yet you run around calling people who have been following this history for decades, liars. What does that say about you?

It says he didn't swallow the lies that you have.

 

[Trajan]

reflects?



Jim Crow was reality. Liberals got rid of Jim Crow.

end of story

no not really, they just re-worked their marketing and changed the name; War on Poverty, AFDC, Food Stamps, SBA loans, Affirmative Action, Quotas etc etc.

Thats the liberal party of yesterday and the democratic party today, I don't miss them.


Hey wait a minute......You know what I contend that those crackers that ran to the rep. knew what Johnson was about to do and embark on and knew it wouldn't work out well, so they sought sanity in the rep. party...and guess what?

fter 40 years, they were right.

War on Poverty, AFDC, Food Stamps, SBA loans, Affirmative Action, Quotas etc etc. = Jim Crow laws?

good bye

you're a moron if you think anyone with any credibility would buy that bullshiit cracker line,

hey? what happened to context?

...and thank you, I am glad you saw my point;

-until you surface implemented national policy based on jim crow, legitimatized, legislated enacted by the Republican party you don't have an argument, you have; innuendo, insinuation, supposition and some isolated minimal 'gotchas'......which don't amount to much.

have a nice holiday btw.

 

[daveman]

-until you surface implemented national policy based on jim crow, legitimatized, legislated enacted by the Republican party you don't have an argument, you have; innuendo, insinuation, supposition and some isolated minimal 'gotchas'......which don't amount to much.

have a nice holiday btw.

Silly Trajan. You're supposed to accept it because they say so. White liberals are the sole arbiter of all things race.

 

[Dick Tuck]

It shows. Yet you run around calling people who have been following this history for decades, liars. What does that say about you?

It says he didn't swallow the lies that you have.

In 1981, political scientist Alexander P. Larris sat down for an interview with an anonymous Reagan strategist who outlined for him how the strategy worked:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

It later emerged that the strategist was a young South Carolinian and Strom Thurmond protégé named Lee Atwater, a former chief executive of the College Republicans who had worked on the Reagan campaign under political director Ed Rollins.​

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I wrote that the racism in the Democratic party pre-1964 was the racism of mostly southern conservatives who later joined the GOP.

Which is an inaccurate portrayal because the Democrats continued to dominate southern politics well into the 1990s and at the state and local level they still dominate politics in many of the states here.

Ed Brooke lost to people like Reagan.

Edward Brooke was defeated by Paul Tsongas in 1978. Reagan wasn't even president yet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It shows. Yet you run around calling people who have been following this history for decades, liars. What does that say about you?

It says he didn't swallow the lies that you have.

In 1981, political scientist Alexander P. Larris sat down for an interview with an anonymous Reagan strategist who outlined for him how the strategy worked:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

It later emerged that the strategist was a young South Carolinian and Strom Thurmond protégé named Lee Atwater, a former chief executive of the College Republicans who had worked on the Reagan campaign under political director Ed Rollins.​

LBJ was calling Thurgood Marshall, his own mentally challenged SCOTUS pick a ****** in 1967!

 

[Trajan]

-until you surface implemented national policy based on jim crow, legitimatized, legislated enacted by the Republican party you don't have an argument, you have; innuendo, insinuation, supposition and some isolated minimal 'gotchas'......which don't amount to much.

have a nice holiday btw.

Silly Trajan. You're supposed to accept it because they say so. White liberals are the sole arbiter of all things race.

your name is Ahmet I take it....yes sir...I am a bad machine sir...

I must walk to the left...yes sir, I am a bad machine....

(1:20)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shlBZZ-IQYY&NR=1]YouTube - Midnight Express - Bad Machine 2[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

It shows. Yet you run around calling people who have been following this history for decades, liars. What does that say about you?

It says he didn't swallow the lies that you have.

In 1981, political scientist Alexander P. Larris sat down for an interview with an anonymous Reagan strategist who outlined for him how the strategy worked:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

It later emerged that the strategist was a young South Carolinian and Strom Thurmond protégé named Lee Atwater, a former chief executive of the College Republicans who had worked on the Reagan campaign under political director Ed Rollins.​

I am not in favor of big cuts in social programs, but I don't see that cutting back these programs are racially motivated. Yes, as a by-products of the cuts, blacks would be hurt more than whites because there are more poor blacks than whites percentage wise. The target of the cuts are not black people but poor people regardless of skin color. There was a time in the "Old South" when social programs were crafted so as to keep blacks poor so as to provide cheap labor. Today when it comes to keeping the poor at the bottom of the social ladder, we don't discriminate.

 

[Dick Tuck]

It says he didn't swallow the lies that you have.

In 1981, political scientist Alexander P. Larris sat down for an interview with an anonymous Reagan strategist who outlined for him how the strategy worked:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

It later emerged that the strategist was a young South Carolinian and Strom Thurmond protégé named Lee Atwater, a former chief executive of the College Republicans who had worked on the Reagan campaign under political director Ed Rollins.​

I am not in favor of big cuts in social programs, but I don't see that cutting back these programs are racially motivated. Yes, as a by-products of the cuts, blacks would be hurt more than whites because there are more poor blacks than whites percentage wise. The target of the cuts are not black people but poor people regardless of skin color. There was a time in the "Old South" when social programs were crafted so as to keep blacks poor so as to provide cheap labor. Today when it comes to keeping the poor at the bottom of the social ladder, we don't discriminate.

Not the point. Atwater was teaching Reagan to speak in code. Remember the bogus Cadillac owning welfare queen, that it turns out to have never existed?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Remember the bogus Cadillac owning welfare queen, that it turns out to have never existed?

They may not drive Cadillacs, but they have no problem affording cellular telephones, cable television, $100 sneakers for their kids, and getting their hair and nails done. I used to be a landlord and I've seen how people on Section 8 and food stamps live with other people's money. The vast majority of them have no business being on public assistance.

 

[Trajan]

In 1981, political scientist Alexander P. Larris sat down for an interview with an anonymous Reagan strategist who outlined for him how the strategy worked:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

It later emerged that the strategist was a young South Carolinian and Strom Thurmond protégé named Lee Atwater, a former chief executive of the College Republicans who had worked on the Reagan campaign under political director Ed Rollins.​

I am not in favor of big cuts in social programs, but I don't see that cutting back these programs are racially motivated. Yes, as a by-products of the cuts, blacks would be hurt more than whites because there are more poor blacks than whites percentage wise. The target of the cuts are not black people but poor people regardless of skin color. There was a time in the "Old South" when social programs were crafted so as to keep blacks poor so as to provide cheap labor. Today when it comes to keeping the poor at the bottom of the social ladder, we don't discriminate.

Not the point. Atwater was teaching Reagan to speak in code. Remember the bogus Cadillac owning welfare queen, that it turns out to have never existed?

oh dude come on, ...Reagan doesn't get an Obama literary license analogy pass?

 

[daveman]

It shows. Yet you run around calling people who have been following this history for decades, liars. What does that say about you?

It says he didn't swallow the lies that you have.

In 1981, political scientist Alexander P. Larris sat down for an interview with an anonymous Reagan strategist who outlined for him how the strategy worked:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”​

It later emerged that the strategist was a young South Carolinian and Strom Thurmond protégé named Lee Atwater, a former chief executive of the College Republicans who had worked on the Reagan campaign under political director Ed Rollins.​

And yet, the GOP has consistently stood for civil rights, and the Democratic party has not. And its current devotion to identity politics is helping keep minorities oppressed.

 

[daveman]

-until you surface implemented national policy based on jim crow, legitimatized, legislated enacted by the Republican party you don't have an argument, you have; innuendo, insinuation, supposition and some isolated minimal 'gotchas'......which don't amount to much.

have a nice holiday btw.

Silly Trajan. You're supposed to accept it because they say so. White liberals are the sole arbiter of all things race.

your name is Ahmet I take it....yes sir...I am a bad machine sir...

I must walk to the left...yes sir, I am a bad machine....

(1:20)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shlBZZ-IQYY&NR=1]YouTube - Midnight Express - Bad Machine 2[/ame]

Well, don't let it happen again!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I wrote that the racism in the Democratic party pre-1964 was the racism of mostly southern conservatives who later joined the GOP.

Which is an inaccurate portrayal because the Democrats continued to dominate southern politics well into the 1990s and at the state and local level they still dominate politics in many of the states here.

Ed Brooke lost to people like Reagan.

Edward Brooke was defeated by Paul Tsongas in 1978. Reagan wasn't even president yet.

Ed Brooke lost to Reagan within the GOP you dope. I wasn't talking about Ed Brooke winning a general election, we were discussing the rejection of liberals within the GOP.

gawd, you're a class A moron.

---

The Southern Strategy was and is a national strategy. It's use was in Presidential campaigns and select Senate Campaigns and a some House campaigns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Apparently the GOP feels the need to have its Southern members like Haley Barbour go out and spread the lie that it wasn't race that caused the Democrats in the South to go running full-speed to the Republican party. It was....some other reason.

Can you believe that tripe? Read it and weep.

The GOP's new fake racial history - War Room - Salon.com

*SMH*

Dang it how soon we forget, Gone but not forgotten

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Southern Democrats AND Southern Republicans in the first 60 some years of the 20th century were almost universally segregationists,

D'oh!


and the civil rights act was after 60 years. it is what the GOP southern strategy is all about -- how some stand up southern Democrats stayed and helped right things and how most southern Democrats left and became Republicans. The unrepentant bigots were welcomed into the open arms of the GOP.

A sitting GOP Chairman later apologized for the facts surrounding the racial bull crap used by the GOP to win elections. Stoking racial fears is what the GOP did for decades. It got Ronald Reagan elected

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So one dead Cracker does a party make.

Need I remind you of Robert Byrd???

using the bigoted actions of individual southerners as an excuse for the actions of institutionalized racism within the GOP -- The GOP Southern Strategy is pathetic.

A sitting GOP Chairman apologized for the racism of his whole party as an institution. Byrd? One man does not equal a party strategy. As a matter of fact, after 1964 anything Byrd sis that was bigoted was at ODDS with his party -- not part of an institutionalized party strategy

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

from your wiki link: "Generally, the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

The acts that led southern conservatives to bolt from the DNC into the welcoming arms of cynical GOP leaders who initiated the GOP's racist Southern strategy.

A strategy that a sitting GOP Chairman (and Bush campaign chairman), during the term of President George W. Bush, later publicly apologized for.

That doesn't change the fact that democrats introduced segregation nor does the fact that the democrats introduced segregation excuse the poor behavior of republicans in the 1960's.

Woodrow Wilson and his congress capped it off, from the left leaning PBS website:

Woodrow Wilson's record on race relations was not very good. African Americans welcomed his election in 1912, but they were worried too. During his first term in office, the House passed a law making racial intermarriage a felony in the District of Columbia. His new Postmaster General also ordered that his Washington offices be segregated, with the Treasury and Navy soon doing the same. Suddenly, photographs were required of all applicants for federal jobs. When pressed by black leaders, Wilson replied, "The purpose of these measures was to reduce the friction Ö It is as far as possible from being a movement against the Negroes. I sincerely believe it to be in their interest."

PBS - American Experience: Woodrow Wilson | Wilson- A Portrait

The problem here is you said: "That doesn't change the fact that democrats introduced segregation nor does the fact that the democrats introduced segregation excuse the poor behavior of republicans in the 1960's."

What you left out is the most important bit of fact: those Democrats and Republicans were not different people.

The poor behavior is the behavior of people who left the DNC for the GOP. The GOP welcomed bigots who fled the DNC because of racial equality. The GOP welcomed racists and bigots with open arms.

Wilson is not at issue. I never argued that individual Democrats were not racist or lackluster in supporting Civil Rights, but out of context I could make almost every single American look like a bigot. Truman is not an issue in teh debate of the GOP's southern strategy -- it is a red herring.

You use one man's struggle with racism to excuse the racism of a late 20th century strategy of a major political party. that is text book pathetic.