Suposedly racist SC conservatives just nominated an Indian American female for governor and black male for congress (thought, Democrats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup, did that a long time ago. Then I saw the following statement (lie/revisionist history) at democrats.org
Democrats retroactively support civil rights. It's not real support though. It's plantation politics.
Facts
The quote from democrats.org explains what you meant by "retroactively" (finally); thank you for posting the incorrect, misleading and dishonest quote from democrats.org. Since I know the history of the parties you can see where I was confused.
I'm going to really help you out here, so you dont have to embarrass yourself anymore after this, unless you do it deliberately the way you did with the Obama book quote. Okay? Just learn something about the Solid South, the background of "the southern strategy," and the turnaround in 1964-65 and party affiliation by race since then. You can get most of this just from Wikipedia. (For fun see if the "Southernization" article describes anything familiar.)
"Plantation politics" is cute, but it's another typically self-serving, typically uncomprehending RW misapplication of the facts.
(More free help: if you intend not to learn the facts, and continue posting that cut and paste job, you should consider snipping off the post-1964-65 bullet points -- especially the "CR"A of 1991 -- they just highlight how shallow, grudging and manipulative the Rs' "efforts" post-1964 have actually been. Also, at C-D you need to credit your sources.)
Fact of the matter is the Democratic Party had two very distinct wings. The northern liberal wing of the party and the southern conservative wing. When Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, many of the southern conservative Democrats in the south bolted from the party and the Republicans seized on it and HEAVILY campaigned for the votes of southern conservative racists.
The rioters at the 1968 Democratic convention had far more to do with conservative Democrats in the south(not to mention the rest of the nation)becoming Republicans.
The quote from democrats.org explains what you meant by "retroactively" (finally); thank you for posting the incorrect, misleading and dishonest quote from democrats.org. Since I know the history of the parties you can see where I was confused.
I'm going to really help you out here, so you dont have to embarrass yourself anymore after this, unless you do it deliberately the way you did with the Obama book quote. Okay? Just learn something about the Solid South, the background of "the southern strategy," and the turnaround in 1964-65 and party affiliation by race since then. You can get most of this just from Wikipedia. (For fun see if the "Southernization" article describes anything familiar.)
"Plantation politics" is cute, but it's another typically self-serving, typically uncomprehending RW misapplication of the facts.
(More free help: if you intend not to learn the facts, and continue posting that cut and paste job, you should consider snipping off the post-1964-65 bullet points -- especially the "CR"A of 1991 -- they just highlight how shallow, grudging and manipulative the Rs' "efforts" post-1964 have actually been. Also, at C-D you need to credit your sources.)
The above characters you typed do not refute my post. I posted facts. Facts don't change. You came back with commonly-used tactics when confronted with uncomfortable facts, which include charges of dishonesty, cut and paste, attempt to ridicule/embarrass and imply I'm a Republican; but you fail to refute anything. Hoping people will just take your word for it? The one thing all those characters you typed demonstrates is that when a myth is repeated enough, many people begin to accept it as truth, regardless of the facts.
The two parties didn't magically switch ideologies. Intellectual dishonesty. I gave you proof that Repubs championed civil rights while Dems fought it every step of the way. The fairy tale that Dems would have us believe is that [a few] southern Dems defected to GOP because GOP was racist; or that it was then somehow reversed and transformed into some kind of racist ideology.
Yes indeed, the rationale behind racist Dems leaving to join Repubs, the party of civil rights, is an astonishing brand of "logic" - and not astonishing in a good way. Don't forget, for example, it was Dem George Wallace blocking desegregation, and Dems conveniently choose to forget about all those who remained behind. Dems are responsible for their plantation politics since, and have managed to convince some that it's a good thing. I assure you there is nothing "cute" about that.
The above characters you typed do not refute my post. I posted facts. Facts don't change. You came back with commonly-used tactics when confronted with uncomfortable facts, which include charges of dishonesty, cut and paste, attempt to ridicule/embarrass and imply I'm a Republican; but you fail to refute anything. Hoping people will just take your word for it? The one thing all those characters you typed demonstrates is that when a myth is repeated enough, many people begin to accept it as truth, regardless of the facts.
The two parties didn't magically switch ideologies. Intellectual dishonesty. I gave you proof that Repubs championed civil rights while Dems fought it every step of the way. The fairy tale that Dems would have us believe is that [a few] southern Dems defected to GOP because GOP was racist; or that it was then somehow reversed and transformed into some kind of racist ideology.
Yes indeed, the rationale behind racist Dems leaving to join Repubs, the party of civil rights, is an astonishing brand of "logic" - and not astonishing in a good way. Don't forget, for example, it was Dem George Wallace blocking desegregation, and Dems conveniently choose to forget about all those who remained behind. Dems are responsible for their plantation politics since, and have managed to convince some that it's a good thing. I assure you there is nothing "cute" about that.
It was southern CONSERVATIVES who fought against Civil Rights. During this time the Democrats had two very distinct wings, the northern liberal wing, and the southern conservative wing. The southern conservative wing started to break away from the Democratic party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. In 1964 LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Act was running for re-election, the GOP nominated Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act, and as a result the GOP cleaned up in the south and won big. After that the GOP used what was the 'Atwater strategy' in campaigning for southern racists who were angered with the Democrats over the passage of the Civl Rights Act.
The above characters you typed do not refute my post. I posted facts. Facts don't change. You came back with commonly-used tactics when confronted with uncomfortable facts, which include charges of dishonesty, cut and paste, attempt to ridicule/embarrass and imply I'm a Republican; but you fail to refute anything. Hoping people will just take your word for it? The one thing all those characters you typed demonstrates is that when a myth is repeated enough, many people begin to accept it as truth, regardless of the facts.
The two parties didn't magically switch ideologies. Intellectual dishonesty. I gave you proof that Repubs championed civil rights while Dems fought it every step of the way. The fairy tale that Dems would have us believe is that [a few] southern Dems defected to GOP because GOP was racist; or that it was then somehow reversed and transformed into some kind of racist ideology.
Yes indeed, the rationale behind racist Dems leaving to join Repubs, the party of civil rights, is an astonishing brand of "logic" - and not astonishing in a good way. Don't forget, for example, it was Dem George Wallace blocking desegregation, and Dems conveniently choose to forget about all those who remained behind. Dems are responsible for their plantation politics since, and have managed to convince some that it's a good thing. I assure you there is nothing "cute" about that.
It was southern CONSERVATIVES who fought against Civil Rights. During this time the Democrats had two very distinct wings, the northern liberal wing, and the southern conservative wing. The southern conservative wing started to break away from the Democratic party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. In 1964 LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Act was running for re-election, the GOP nominated Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act, and as a result the GOP cleaned up in the south and won big. After that the GOP used what was the 'Atwater strategy' in campaigning for southern racists who were angered with the Democrats over the passage of the Civl Rights Act.
Unfortunately this doesnt seem to be what the poster wants to believe.
Fact of the matter is the Democratic Party had two very distinct wings. The northern liberal wing of the party and the southern conservative wing. When Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, many of the southern conservative Democrats in the south bolted from the party and the Republicans seized on it and HEAVILY campaigned for the votes of southern conservative racists.
The Democratic party has ALWAYS had two distinct wings. So did the Republican party. Southern Democrats remained in the Democratic party well into the 90s. Look up the origin of most Democratic Representatives and Senators since 1964, the South remained blue until 1994. Mississippi was a one party state until 1992. Alabama has not had a Republican controlled state Congress in over a 100 years! South Carolina only recently (1998) began voting Republicans into its state Congress!
Southern Democrats were strongly pro-labor, a bastion of the Democratic party. No way they would skip on that and vote Republican, and they didn't. In 1976 the entire South voted for Carter, a Democrat. In 1980, Reagan picked H.W. Bush as VP to win Texas and the rest of the South; the polls had favored Carter in the Southern states up to that point. 1984 and 1988 were another two massive Republican landslides, and in 1992 several Southern states - GA, TN, KY, AR, and LA - voted for another SOUTHERN Democrat, Bill Clinton. Same in 1996, with a few states flipping.
Even today the Democrats have two distinct wings. Do you even know your party that well Smash255? Ever heard of the Blue Dog Coalition? They are the spiritual successors of the Southern Democrats, and without them the Democratic party in Congress would be useless.
The Democratic party has ALWAYS had two distinct wings. So did the Republican party. Southern Democrats remained in the Democratic party well into the 90s. Look up the origin of most Democratic Representatives and Senators since 1964, the South remained blue until 1994. Mississippi was a one party state until 1992. Alabama has not had a Republican controlled state Congress in over a 100 years! South Carolina only recently (1998) began voting Republicans into its state Congress!
Southern Democrats were strongly pro-labor, a bastion of the Democratic party. No way they would skip on that and vote Republican, and they didn't. In 1976 the entire South voted for Carter, a Democrat. In 1980, Reagan picked H.W. Bush as VP to win Texas and the rest of the South; the polls had favored Carter in the Southern states up to that point. 1984 and 1988 were another two massive Republican landslides, and in 1992 several Southern states - GA, TN, KY, AR, and LA - voted for another SOUTHERN Democrat, Bill Clinton. Same in 1996, with a few states flipping.
Even today the Democrats have two distinct wings. Do you even know your party that well Smash255? Ever heard of the Blue Dog Coalition? They are the spiritual successors of the Southern Democrats, and without them the Democratic party in Congress would be useless.
I'm not suggesting all Democrats were gone out of the south. However, that doesn't change the fact the GOP started making big gains in the south as a result of those turning against the party as a result of the 1964 Civil Rights Act nor does that change the fact that after the passage of the Civil Rights Act the GOP campaigned HARD for and targeted the votes of southern conservative racists.
It was southern CONSERVATIVES who fought against Civil Rights. During this time the Democrats had two very distinct wings, the northern liberal wing, and the southern conservative wing. The southern conservative wing started to break away from the Democratic party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. In 1964 LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Act was running for re-election, the GOP nominated Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act, and as a result the GOP cleaned up in the south and won big. After that the GOP used what was the 'Atwater strategy' in campaigning for southern racists who were angered with the Democrats over the passage of the Civl Rights Act.
The GOP won votes from southern conservatives due to conservativise issues, fiscal, small gov., states rights, etc. Does that say there were no racists in the bunch? Of course not. It also doesn't say that there are no racist Dems. I encounter them almost daily. As long as they are Dems, they are accepted by Dems.
I completely understand that Dems are still bitter about losing votes from those they now claim did so out of racism. Goldwater didn't oppose civil rights - another myth. If he won some votes because some voters believed he generally opposed civil rights, well, that's politics. They were typically uninformed American voters - the same kind of voters Dems love. Now you attempt to paint with broad brush strokes that the GOP is some sort of racist boogeyman. Most people touting this aren't themselves targets of racism and never were. Please, find a new schtick!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
