The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[Steinlight]

Weren't you reading my thread? Geez you're dense. So dense in fact, you cause things to go in orbit.

I am reading your thread.

How about you answer the questions instead of throwing out insults.

You mean you weren't reading it before?

Until you posit a real argument, you will get nothing else. You aren't serious. You're not even attempting to disprove my points.

You have shown no proof liberals are restricting the rights of women, minorities, or Christians and thus have yet to prove them hypocrites. I don't think you understand the concept of rights.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nine years after what? Jesse Helms was a self styled "conservative" democrat during his stint at local policies in the 60s. He ran as a "conservative" republican in his 1972 senatorial bid.

Why doesn't he count?

And why are you denying the Southern Strategy? It is just a matter of historical fact. It was savvy politics. Atwater would be rolling in his grave if he found out how many people are ignorant of his historical campaign work.

He doesn't count simply because Thurmond defected in 1964, if his move were motivated by the Civil Rights movement, he would have stated so. Did he? As opposed to Strom Thurmond, he tried to filibuster a bill instituting Martin Luther King Day in 1983. Thurmond appointed Thomas Moss, an African American, to his staff in 1971. Helms to my knowledge never did anything of the sort. Also I'm not denying the Southern Strategy. I'm saying it dissipated. That is a historical fact. It wasn't until the 2000 Presidential election that the South voted majorly for a Republican for president again. Big difference.

That bit about Lee Atwater was a cheap shot. Move along.

In short, yes, Helms did leave in part due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Bill.
"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

Conservatives(southerners mostly) left the Democrat party in droves because the Democratic Party Leadership from the 60s forward(primarily in the 70s though) took a decidedly more liberal direction.

Also, you are simply wrong about the dissipation of Southern support for the GOP. In every election since 1972(minus 1976 where the South supported Jimmy Carter, a fellow southerner), the GOP has won the majority or the entirety of the South. Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney all won the South.

Bullshit.

In 1980, all but one state, Georgia, voted for Reagan. In 1984, all of the South voted for Reagan. In 1988, it again voted majorly for Bush I. In 1992, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton. In 1996, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton again. In 2000, the South voted for Bush II, again in 2004. In 2008, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, and in 2012, only Virginia and Florida voted for Obama.

If it weren't for the 92 and 96 elections, you'd be right. And for geography's sake, "The South" does not consist of just the three states Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am reading your thread.

How about you answer the questions instead of throwing out insults.

You mean you weren't reading it before?

Until you posit a real argument, you will get nothing else. You aren't serious. You're not even attempting to disprove my points.

You have shown no proof liberals are restricting the rights of women, minorities, or Christians and thus have yet to prove them hypocrites. I don't think you understand the concept of rights.

You just don't get it do you? If you tout tolerance, you treat them with tolerance along with fighting for their rights. Why vilify a woman your party would defend as a liberal? Why vilify a black man your party would defend as a liberal? See what I'm getting at? Why attack a Christian for his faith, but not a Muslim? If he or she isn't with you, they are against you.

 

[Steinlight]

He doesn't count simply because Thurmond defected in 1964, if his move were motivated by the Civil Rights movement, he would have stated so. Did he? As opposed to Strom Thurmond, he tried to filibuster a bill instituting Martin Luther King Day in 1983. Thurmond appointed Thomas Moss, an African American, to his staff in 1971. Helms to my knowledge never did anything of the sort. Also I'm not denying the Southern Strategy. I'm saying it dissipated. That is a historical fact. It wasn't until the 2000 Presidential election that the South voted majorly for a Republican for president again. Big difference.

That bit about Lee Atwater was a cheap shot. Move along.

In short, yes, Helms did leave in part due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Bill.
"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

Conservatives(southerners mostly) left the Democrat party in droves because the Democratic Party Leadership from the 60s forward(primarily in the 70s though) took a decidedly more liberal direction.

Also, you are simply wrong about the dissipation of Southern support for the GOP. In every election since 1972(minus 1976 where the South supported Jimmy Carter, a fellow southerner), the GOP has won the majority or the entirety of the South. Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney all won the South.

Bullshit.

In 1980, all but one state, Georgia, voted for Reagan. In 1984, all of the South voted for Reagan. In 1988, it again voted majorly for Bush I. In 1992, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton. In 1996, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton again. In 2000, the South voted for Bush II, again in 2004. In 2008, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, and in 2012, only Virginia and Florida voted for Obama.

If it weren't for the 92 and 96 elections, you'd be right.

LOL, thanks for amplifying my point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In short, yes, Helms did leave in part due to his opposition to the Civil Rights Bill.
"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

Conservatives(southerners mostly) left the Democrat party in droves because the Democratic Party Leadership from the 60s forward(primarily in the 70s though) took a decidedly more liberal direction.

Also, you are simply wrong about the dissipation of Southern support for the GOP. In every election since 1972(minus 1976 where the South supported Jimmy Carter, a fellow southerner), the GOP has won the majority or the entirety of the South. Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney all won the South.

Bullshit.

In 1980, all but one state, Georgia, voted for Reagan. In 1984, all of the South voted for Reagan. In 1988, it again voted majorly for Bush I. In 1992, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton. In 1996, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton again. In 2000, the South voted for Bush II, again in 2004. In 2008, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, and in 2012, only Virginia and Florida voted for Obama.

If it weren't for the 92 and 96 elections, you'd be right.

LOL, thanks for amplifying my point.

LOL. Thanks for lying about the "every election since 1972" part. If it were true the south would have voted for Republicans in 76, 92, and 96.

 

[Steinlight]

Bullshit.

In 1980, all but one state, Georgia, voted for Reagan. In 1984, all of the South voted for Reagan. In 1988, it again voted majorly for Bush I. In 1992, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton. In 1996, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and Arkansas voted for Clinton again. In 2000, the South voted for Bush II, again in 2004. In 2008, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia voted for Obama, and in 2012, only Virginia and Florida voted for Obama.

If it weren't for the 92 and 96 elections, you'd be right.

LOL, thanks for amplifying my point.

LOL. Thanks for lying about the "every election" part. If it were true the south would have voted for Republicans in 76, 92, and 96.

You didn't finish the phrase, I clearly said every that in election since 1972, other than 1976, the Republicans won the majority or the entirety of the South.

Like I said before, thanks for amplifying my point on the Southern Strategy and conceding through silence on Jesse Helms.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Also in 1968, Nixon did not win the south. The Strategy failed.

Texas voted for Hubert Humphrey, while Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas voted for George Wallace.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL, thanks for amplifying my point.

LOL. Thanks for lying about the "every election" part. If it were true the south would have voted for Republicans in 76, 92, and 96.

You didn't finish the phrase, I clearly said every that in election since 1972, other than 1976, the Republicans won the majority or the entirety of the South.

Like I said before, thanks for amplifying my point on the Southern Strategy and conceding through silence on Jesse Helms.

Jesse Helms never mentioned anything about the Civil Rights movement being a motivating factor for his defection. If you can find where he said so, you'd have a point. Don't take my silence as a concession, I'm waiting for you to disprove my point, which you have yet to do. Lets go hotshot.

 

[Steinlight]

Also in 1968, Nixon did not win the south. The Strategy failed.

Texas voted for Hubert Humphrey, while Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas voted for George Wallace.

Yes, there was marked progress in the South going Red between 1968 and 1972, thank you for amplifying the success of the Southern Strategy over time. Also, in both 1964 and 1968, the Republicans won Southern states they hadn't won since Reconstruction.

 

[Dutch]

So Templar what is the reason that the majority of the South went Republican since 1972?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Moreover, why were Democrats saying things like "Southernization is over" in 2008? They were saying "Democrats can win the South."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Steinlight]

LOL. Thanks for lying about the "every election" part. If it were true the south would have voted for Republicans in 76, 92, and 96.

You didn't finish the phrase, I clearly said every that in election since 1972, other than 1976, the Republicans won the majority or the entirety of the South.

Like I said before, thanks for amplifying my point on the Southern Strategy and conceding through silence on Jesse Helms.

Jesse Helms never mentioned anything about the Civil Rights movement being a motivating factor for his defection. If you can find where he said so, you'd have a point. Don't take my silence as a concession, I'm waiting for you to disprove my point, which you have yet to do. Lets go hotshot.

I already provided proof Helms opposed the Civil Rights Act.

"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

"Helms' editorials featured folksy anecdotes interwoven with conservative views against, amongst others, "the civil rights movement, the liberal news media, and anti-war churches".[15] He referred to The News and Observer, his former employer, as the "Nuisance and Disturber" for its promotion of liberal views and support for civil rights activity.[17] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which had a reputation for liberalism, was also a frequent target of Helms' criticism. He referred to the university as "The University of Negroes and Communists", and suggested a wall be erected around the campus to prevent the university's liberal views from "infecting" the rest of the state. Helms said the civil rights movement was infested by communists and "moral degenerates", and described Medicaid as a "step over into the swampy field of socialized medicine".[15]
On the 1963 civil rights protests, Helms stated, "The negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."[18] He later wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among negroes are a fact of life which must be faced".[19]"

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dutch]

Moreover, why were Democrats saying things like "Southernization is over" in 2008? They were saying "Democrats can win the South."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11south.html?pagewanted=all

Because demographics are changing moron.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Also in 1968, Nixon did not win the south. The Strategy failed.

Texas voted for Hubert Humphrey, while Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas voted for George Wallace.

Yes, there was marked progress in the South going Red between 1968 and 1972, thank you for amplifying the success of the Southern Strategy over time. Also, in both 1964 and 1968, the Republicans won Southern states they hadn't won since Reconstruction.

I didn't amplify anything. Had the Southern Strategy worked, Stein, he would have won every last one of them. It backfired when 6 Southern States failed to vote for Nixon in 1968. The Southern Strategy failed. You have three instances of that happening, including 1968.

By 1976, almost every State governor in the South was a Democrat. In America they held 37 governorships. It wasn't until 1994 when Republicans turned tables and took 30 governorships. So, if it worked, why weren't there more Republican governors in that 22 year timespan from 72 to 94?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You didn't finish the phrase, I clearly said every that in election since 1972, other than 1976, the Republicans won the majority or the entirety of the South.

Like I said before, thanks for amplifying my point on the Southern Strategy and conceding through silence on Jesse Helms.

Jesse Helms never mentioned anything about the Civil Rights movement being a motivating factor for his defection. If you can find where he said so, you'd have a point. Don't take my silence as a concession, I'm waiting for you to disprove my point, which you have yet to do. Lets go hotshot.

I already provided proof Helms opposed the Civil Rights Act.

"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

"Helms' editorials featured folksy anecdotes interwoven with conservative views against, amongst others, "the civil rights movement, the liberal news media, and anti-war churches".[15] He referred to The News and Observer, his former employer, as the "Nuisance and Disturber" for its promotion of liberal views and support for civil rights activity.[17] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which had a reputation for liberalism, was also a frequent target of Helms' criticism. He referred to the university as "The University of Negroes and Communists", and suggested a wall be erected around the campus to prevent the university's liberal views from "infecting" the rest of the state. Helms said the civil rights movement was infested by communists and "moral degenerates", and described Medicaid as a "step over into the swampy field of socialized medicine".[15]
On the 1963 civil rights protests, Helms stated, "The negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."[18] He later wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among negroes are a fact of life which must be faced".[19]"

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, once again, why did he wait for 9 years? Where did he specifically state that the Civil Rights movement was responsible for his defection? Oh yeah that's right. He didn't defect from the Party along with Strom Thurmond in a fit of protest.

 

[Steinlight]

Jesse Helms never mentioned anything about the Civil Rights movement being a motivating factor for his defection. If you can find where he said so, you'd have a point. Don't take my silence as a concession, I'm waiting for you to disprove my point, which you have yet to do. Lets go hotshot.

I already provided proof Helms opposed the Civil Rights Act.

"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

"Helms' editorials featured folksy anecdotes interwoven with conservative views against, amongst others, "the civil rights movement, the liberal news media, and anti-war churches".[15] He referred to The News and Observer, his former employer, as the "Nuisance and Disturber" for its promotion of liberal views and support for civil rights activity.[17] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which had a reputation for liberalism, was also a frequent target of Helms' criticism. He referred to the university as "The University of Negroes and Communists", and suggested a wall be erected around the campus to prevent the university's liberal views from "infecting" the rest of the state. Helms said the civil rights movement was infested by communists and "moral degenerates", and described Medicaid as a "step over into the swampy field of socialized medicine".[15]
On the 1963 civil rights protests, Helms stated, "The negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."[18] He later wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among negroes are a fact of life which must be faced".[19]"

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, once again, why did he wait for 9 years? Where did he specifically state that the Civil Rights movement was responsible for his defection? Oh yeah that's right. He didn't defect from the Party along with Strom Thurmond in a fit of protest.

He left due to the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Atwater, he said so himself.

Link here:Documenting the American South: Oral Histories of the American South

 

[francoHFW]

zzzzzzzzzzz The Rush/Beck history of the world...Wallace was the TP of '68, obviously.

 

[Steinlight]

Also in 1968, Nixon did not win the south. The Strategy failed.

Texas voted for Hubert Humphrey, while Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas voted for George Wallace.

Yes, there was marked progress in the South going Red between 1968 and 1972, thank you for amplifying the success of the Southern Strategy over time. Also, in both 1964 and 1968, the Republicans won Southern states they hadn't won since Reconstruction.

I didn't amplify anything. Had the Southern Strategy worked, Stein, he would have won every last one of them. It backfired when 6 Southern States failed to vote for Nixon in 1968. The Southern Strategy failed. You have three instances of that happening, including 1968.

By 1976, almost every State governor in the South was a Democrat. In America they held 37 governorships. It wasn't until 1994 when Republicans turned tables and took 30 governorships. So, if it worked, why weren't there more Republican governors in that 22 year timespan from 72 to 94?

Gaining states your party hadn't previously won in almost a century, and then going on to win the majority or the entirety of a region in following elections from there on isn't failure by any stretch.

Atwater was a political genius, and you are nothing but a historical revisionist.

As for Governor's races, the Atwater strategy was a national election strategy. Didn't involve governor's races. Apples and Oranges.

 

[candycorn]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Stop the clock!

That was really, really interesting. And so original.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There is some truth to what he says although I'm not sure how you become "majorly white". At least he didn't do that whole "I have a lot of minority friends" then proceeds to name all four of them.

In truth there is some intolerance on both sides of the aisle. Comparing the two parties is laughable with the Democrats being far more inclusive of other races and both sexes if you go by the numbers of elected officials. There is no contest.

Comparing the ideologies? He has some points. The far ends of both ideologies are not trusting of the other side. Those toward the middle? Far more engaging. But like it or not, most conservatives identify with the GOP and most liberals identify with the Democrats. And as proven by the sheer numbers in federal level seats, Dems are far more inclusive.

Dems wouldn't let Pro life Democrats speak at the convention.

The party platform is the party platform. It's one of the reasons I'm not a democrat.

They held closed door meetings on Capitol Hill without the Republicans, passed a healthcare overhaul without one Republican vote.

In the former, I imagine they held numerous closed door meetings. In the case of the latter, that is the GOP's fault for not recognizing there is a healthcare crisis in this nation. Frankly the public could have benefited from some input from the republicans. We probably would have had a better law as a result. Quite obviously, quite clearly, and quite incorrect is any statement to the contrary, the GOP denied there was a problem and had no interest in working with the White House to solve it.

As for including people...

What brought Ms. Fluke to the limelight was the the GOP decided 2 years ago during a hearing about Obamacare to not allow her to testify before their committee. Of the eleven people called on that day, two were women, only one with public health experience and they were on the second panel; the first panel...all men.

They attack people who don't think like they do.

Pot meet kettle. You're really going to state that republicans don't do that? Really?

Inclusive? Are you joking?

List the numbers of minorities serving at the federal level and put their party affiliation next to their name. You'll find far more D's next to their names.

Go ahead...feel free.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I already provided proof Helms opposed the Civil Rights Act.

"An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation and most blacks were disfranchised. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms conducted a 16-day filibuster to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr."

"Helms' editorials featured folksy anecdotes interwoven with conservative views against, amongst others, "the civil rights movement, the liberal news media, and anti-war churches".[15] He referred to The News and Observer, his former employer, as the "Nuisance and Disturber" for its promotion of liberal views and support for civil rights activity.[17] The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which had a reputation for liberalism, was also a frequent target of Helms' criticism. He referred to the university as "The University of Negroes and Communists", and suggested a wall be erected around the campus to prevent the university's liberal views from "infecting" the rest of the state. Helms said the civil rights movement was infested by communists and "moral degenerates", and described Medicaid as a "step over into the swampy field of socialized medicine".[15]
On the 1963 civil rights protests, Helms stated, "The negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."[18] He later wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among negroes are a fact of life which must be faced".[19]"

Jesse Helms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, once again, why did he wait for 9 years? Where did he specifically state that the Civil Rights movement was responsible for his defection? Oh yeah that's right. He didn't defect from the Party along with Strom Thurmond in a fit of protest.

He left due to the Southern Strategy of Nixon and Atwater, he said so himself.

Link here:Documenting the American South: Oral Histories of the American South

From your link

"I was in Washington two or three years in the early fifties as administrative assistant to two Democratic senators, as you know, and when the conservative faction of the Democratic party prevailed in North Carolina, I did do some work for the party. I did some writing, I wrote speeches for a number of prominent Democrats from time to time, helped in other ways. But the party veered so far to the left nationally, and was taken over by the people whom I'd describe as substantially left of center in North Carolina. And I think I felt, as many other Democrats felt and feel, that really I had no real faith in the party.

But I didn't do anything about it. Changing parties, changing party registration, is like moving from a church. But President Nixon's speech at Kansas State, I think it was, persuaded me that maybe the Republican party in North Carolina and in the nation had a chance to restore the two party system. Not merely in terms of electing a president, but in getting a Congress that could be reasonably expected to pull us back to the point of fiscal sanity. And in other matters."

-Jesse Helms

Nail in the coffin. You lied through your teeth. The Southern Strategy, nor Lee Atwater were mentioned in that interview. Don't you dare insult my intelligence.