NRA -are they Serious?!?

[moosetracker 132]

Oh no.. I can assure you all the youth coming out of college predominantly voting democratic is not by my hand.

 

You are right I meant cite. Never stated I was the best speller.

 

So does that mean you (like Brewmeister and vol_scouter) are of the belief that the Republican party is still the popular political party from the north, fighting for the civil rights of the blacks, rather then being the fact that the deep red states of today are a very close mirror image of the southern states who became the confederacy during the civil war?

[JoeBob 606]

Hey Moose,

 

This is not an attack on you personally; this is an attack on your credibility as a college professor who should be able to use correct grammar.

 

 

1/2/2013: 3:47:45 AM

"But, your of the Republican poll watchers"

you're

 

"lenthening the ballot to rediculous lenthens.. All voter suppression."

lengthening ridiculous lengths

 

"they came out to vote in a larger percentage then any other group,"

than

 

 

1/3/2013: 5:01:29 AM

"Right now their is a civil war within your party"

there

 

"the Democratic party start to evovole and change soon"

evolve

 

1/3/2013: 8:27:33 AM

"find a way to rise up to take it's place"

its

 

""Your on your own""

You're on your own. Mistake repeated twice.

 

"civil rights is accredited to the President we had when it was created,"

credited

 

Moose, all the above are careless errors you've made just on page 11, not counting obvious typos, tense errors, and subject verb mismatch.

 

How about taking a little 'personal responsibility' for your abuse of the English language?

[JoeBob 606]

Moose,

 

"Try looking for ways to cut in places that do not take pleasure in hurting the poor and middle class."

 

If you really believe that anyone is looking for ways to hurt the poor and middle class, then I'm not sure you're worth talking to.

 

JoeBob

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hey JB, I pretty much disagree with all that Moosetracker says, but if that means I have to stand with you, I have reconsiderations to do

[JoeBob 606]

OGE:

 

If you can smell me over the internet, that's a good computer!

[Brewmeister 132]

Moose, speaking as a conservative, I believe in equal opportunity regardless of skin color.

 

I don't speak for the Republican party, but I don't see them, oh, for instance, elevating a klansman to a position of power within their ranks...not like any party would do that, right?

[vol_scouter 365]

Beavah and Moose,

 

You both are simply wrong. Here is a list of Dixiecrat Senators. Twenty two of them (did not find a list of names after a few minutes of searching) voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Only ONE changed parties (Thurmond). It is simply liberal lies about the party change that you two discuss. Here is the list:

 

 

 

(D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965, retired from the Senate for health reasons in November 1965 and died in 1966

 

(D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966, Democrat Spong defeated Robertson in the primary in one of the biggest upsets in Virginia political history

 

(D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959-2010, died in office

 

(D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989, Stennis retired from the Senate in 1989

 

(D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978, he ultimately decided not to seek re-election in 1978

 

(D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972, the veteran senator died during the primary campaign

 

(D) TN Albert Gore, Sr. 1953-1971, defeated by Republican Bill Brock

 

(D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987, retired from the Senate in January 1987

 

(D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974, resigned in December 1974, just before his term ended

 

(D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973, unseated in the 1972 Democratic primary by Congressman Nick Galifianakis

 

(D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969 retired from the Senate in 1969 and was succeeded by fellow Democrat, James B. Allen of Gadsden

 

(D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979 In his last Senate race in 1972, Sparkman easily defeated President Nixon's former Postmaster General, the Republican businessman Winton M. Blount of Montgomery and died of natural causes in a nursing home in Huntsville, at the age of eighty-five.

 

(D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971, left office in January 1971 due to an increasingly severe heart condition and died November 6, 1971

 

(D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969, declined to run for re-election to a fourth Senate term and retired from politics

 

(D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965, died on April 18, 1965, following a long battle with cancer

 

(D-R)SC Strom Thurmond, Democrat 1946-1964, Republican 1964-2003, died in office

 

(D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977, died 1977

 

(D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971, died in office

 

(D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981, Talmadge defeated Miller but lost to Mack Mattingly in the general election. Mattingly was the first Republican to represent Georgia in the Senate since Reconstruction

 

(D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964, Walters was appointed to the Senate on August 20, 1963 when Estes Kefauver died by Governor Frank Clement at the age of 71 so that Clement could succeed him in the Senate

 

As I stated, growing up in the south with a large population of people of color, unlike NH, I witnessed the terrible discrimination of the democrat party. That is part of the reason that I typically do not vote democrat.

[Brewmeister 132]

Careful, volunteer, that looks a lot like hate speech to me. Can't let facts get in the way of the Big Lie.

 

Just keep repeating the mantra "Conservatives are a bunch of racistsexistelitisthomophobes" and you'll fit right in.

 

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

There is no doubt that the Democratic politicians of the southern states during the 1960's were opposed to the Civil Rights Act. But to use that to paint a broad brush against the current iteration of the Democratic party is a bit disingenuous. Majorities of both the Democratic and the Republican parties voted for the Civil Rights Act from the North. From the South (defined as the 8 states that seceded during the civil war), only 7 House members and 1 Senator voted for the Civil Rights Act - and they were all Democrats. No Republican politician from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act. The divide over the Civil Rights Act was much less a party divide as it was a geographical divide.

 

Shortly thereafter, Barry Goldwater, in the 1964 election, won 6 states - one was Arizona, the other 5 were southern states that had voted Democratic for 100 years. This set the stage for Nixon's Southern Strategy, which was specifically designed to appeal to the racist sensibilities of southern whites to get them to switch their votes to the Republican party. I don't think anyone can deny that the strategy was successful. The southern states have been fairly reliable for the Republican Party ever since, with a few outliers (Carter (a Southerner) took the Southern states and Clinton and Obama have each won one or two Southern states in elections - that Clinton, a Southerner, did not take more southern states in his first campaign says something about the success of the Southern Strategy as well).

 

That some of the Dixiecrats remained in office so long after the 1960's can probably be attributed more toward folks being familiar with them and having voted against the Civil Rights Act. People don't like change so they'll vote for the familiar. Strom Thurmond did change parties - and he did so because his party was evolving away from his views and the Republican Party, partly due to the Southern Strategy, was moving towards his views. Robert Byrd did not change parties because in his case, his views were evolving right along with the Democratic Party's views - Byrd even said his greatest regret was voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

More to the point, going back in time 50 years to call out the Democratic Party or 150 years to extoll the virtues of the Republican party is really useless and is the refuge of those with a weak argument. It's the equivalent of a Scout saying "But Johnny did it too". We don't live in a static society - there have been a whole lot of changes in the last 150 years. In that time, there have been a whole lot of changes in our political parties as well. The Democratic Party of the 1960's is a wholly different beast then the Democratic Party of 2013. Same goes for the Republicans. We're living in the here and now - if you have to reach to the past to say "Well, Democrats did this in the 1960's" or "Well, Republican's did this in the 1860's", in order to defend your party, then I imagine you must know deep down that something is just not right and you're defending something you're not sure you really believe in anymore.

[Brewmeister 132]

You miss the point. It's not about using the past to make a claim about the present; it's about making sure the past is accurately reflected.

 

Lincoln was not a Democrat. Neither was Reagan. Kennedy was not a Republican. And as you point out it was Democrats who stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation.

 

It is simply wrong to say, "Well, yah, but those 'Dixicrats' were really Republicans in disguise."

 

Facts are what they are.

 

Regarding the present, see my points about conservative candidates being summarily dismissed as "tokens," or caricatured...and who's doing the dismissing. I see nobody has argued that because, of course, it is a fact. But of course it's ok to lampoon minorities who are conservative because, after all, they are not genuine. "Cornball brothers," to borrow a phrase.

 

However, as I also admitted, the Democrats, aided by a complicit media and educational system, have widely succeeded in casting modern day conservatives as RacistSexistBigotedElitistHomophobes. It has been a brilliantly divisive and effective campaign.

[packsaddle 753]

Yeah, Moosetracker! What's the matter with you and Calico? Are you completely ignorant of our history?

Everyone knows that Kennedy and Johnson were opposed to the Civil Rights Act and that Goldwater and Nixon were great supporters of it. That's why all the minorities flock to the Republican Party.

[CalicoPenn 729]

"And as you point out it was Democrats who stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation."

 

No, I believe I just confirmed that SOUTHERN Democrats by and large stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation. I also pointed out the southern REPUBLICANS also stood in staunch opposition to civil rights legislation. NORTHERN Democrats and Republicans by and large favored civil rights legislation. There were some northern Democrats and Republicans that opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and it should be noted that more northern Republicans voted aganst the act than northern Democrats.

 

Again, I re-iterate - this wasn't a Democrat/Republican battle - this was a North/South battle. The opposition to the civil rights act came from the southern represenatives and senators - of both parties - and let me rimind you again, that from the southern states, NO Republicans voted for the civil rights act but some Democrats did.

 

As for the list of "Dixiecrat" Senators - technically, only one person on that list was a Dixiecrat, and that was Strom Thurmond, and he did switch parties in 1964. The Dixicrats were a break-away group from the Democrats back in 1948 who were upset with the Democratic Party platform calling for integration and civil rights. Calling themselves the States' Rights Democratic Party, they ran Strom Thurmond as their candidate for President. The latter use of the term "dixiecrat" was a media invention to try to lump all southern politicians from the Democratic Party (heck, there are even references to Jesse Helms being a "dixiecrat" and he was elected to the Senate in the 70's as a Republican).

 

Finally, before jumping all over the "liberals" and "democrats" for demonizing "modern conservatives" and teh Republican party, there are former officeholders of the Republican party that have jumped on that bandwagon too, publicly letting folks know just how disgusted they are with the current incarnation of the Republican Party. Olympia Snowe of Maine, a very popular politician in Maine who would have easily cruised back in to office had she run last year decided to leave office because of her disgust with what her party has turned into.

[Brewmeister 132]

Yup, and still nobody will touch the fact about how minority conservatives are lampooned.

 

Just keep parsing and rewriting history and ignoring the present. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[packsaddle 753]

Yeah, everyone KNOWS that non-minority liberals are NEVER lampooned or ridiculed. Never, Ever!

[vol_scouter 365]

So Calico, you are correct in your assertion but let's portray it accurately. There were a total of 126 Congressmen representing the House and Senate for southern states. Of those, only 11 were Republicans. Some southern House districts, Senate seats, and governors had not been held by a republican since reconstruction until the 1980's. Why? The democrats were the party of segregation opposing the Republicans who were the party of integration. Here is the breakdown:

 

The House version:

 

Southern Democrats: 787 (7%93%)

Southern Republicans: 010 (0%100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%15%)

 

The Senate version:

 

Southern Democrats: 120 (5%95%)

Southern Republicans: 01 (0%100%)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%2%)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%16%)

 

Beavah and Moose and many in the media say that the Dixiecrat democrats (the term was still being applied in the sixties to the 'solid south') became Republicans. I just listed all the democrat Senators who voted and only one changed - Strom Thurmond. It is not true that the democrats voting against the 1964 civil rights act changed party. According to Stephen Ambrose by NPR, there was a Republican member of the House from the far west who went around the south in the 1950's telling the south to stop segregation. That Representative? Richard Nixon. So yes, Nixon was for integration before most politicians of either party.

 

Like Brewmeister, I get tired of the way the left and the media twist history. They are masterful. As I said, going up in the south, it was clear that the democrat party in the south was the party of segregation. They were the form klansmen and proud of it (Robert Byrd). Those are facts. It is also a fact that the south as a region was wrong in its treatment of blacks. It is also true that it was historically the republican party that passed the 14th amendment and many other civil rights bills.

 

If the past of a party should not be a measure of the party now, why do we hear about McCarthyism frequently? It is used to change the subject and put republicans on the defensive that many were not even alive when it occurred.

 

Racism was and is not just a southern problem.