A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Brown v. Board (1954). President Eisenhower.

I understand the desire to pretend like the Republicans never had a Southern Strategy, never tried to avoid racism to attract white voters in the South, and never tried to use the Civil Rights Act against the Dems.

But when your own party chair apologizes to the NAACP for the party having done just that, it's a little hard to make that denial work.

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Mehlman's apology to the NAACP at the group's convention in Milwaukee marked the first time a top Republican Party leader has denounced the so-called Southern Strategy employed by Richard Nixon and other Republicans to peel away white voters in what was then the heavily Democratic South. Beginning in the mid-1960s, Republicans encouraged disaffected Southern white voters to vote Republican by blaming pro-civil rights Democrats for racial unrest and other racial problems.

eta: Let me say, as I've said before: I applaud Mehlman for doing this. It's his fellow Repubs, who deny that the thing he's apologizing for ever happened, that are the problem.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Wait. Eisenhower had a vote on the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that Eisenhower could have done something to stop the Court from ruling the way they did?

And I believe history reflects that Eisenhower opposed the decision personally, but enforced it (somewhat loosely and slowly) because he was a military man, ad you can't have the states defying the federal government.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand the desire to pretend like the Republicans never had a Southern Strategy, never tried to avoid racism to attract white voters in the South, and never tried to use the Civil Rights Act against the Dems.

But when your own party chair apologizes to the NAACP for the party having done just that, it's a little hard to make that denial work.





eta: Let me say, as I've said before: I applaud Mehlman for doing this. It's his fellow Repubs, who deny that the thing he's apologizing for ever happened, that are the problem.

Maybe Mehlman's ignorance of history is bourne out of the fact that he was not around when the events occured. While I know its hard to admit your chosen party is led by a KLansman (and a serial rapist), even your left wing NYT has started to recognize the holes in the myth of the "Republican Southern strategy", see below and here

December 10, 2006
The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
By CLAY RISEN
Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.”

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe Mehlman's ignorance of history is bourne out of the fact that he was not around when the events occured. While I know its hard to admit your chosen party is led by a KLansman (and a serial rapist), even your left wing NYT has started to recognize the holes in the myth of the "Republican Southern strategy", see below and here

December 10, 2006
The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
By CLAY RISEN
Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.”

Risen can be excused for not trying to get Richard Nixon to comment for this story, but only because Nixon had been dead for several years.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Once again -- blame it on the Dems.

If you call the truth blame it is time to start some soul searching. No matter how you slice it, Gingrich and the Republican Congress showed incredible fiscal discplline, and they sent Clinton budgets that drastically reduced spending.

You may disagree with the cuts, but the bottom line is the Republicans were pushing for more fiscal discipline and Clinton fought against it. He wielded his veto to increase spending.

You may argue about the merits of the cuts, but there is no question that in this dispute the Repubicans were on the side of fiscal discipline.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Risen can be excused for not trying to get Richard Nixon to comment for this story, but only because Nixon had been dead for several years.

outside of racial fear mongoring how do you explain the way the Dems get something like 90% of the vote in black inner cities? let he who is w/o sin cast the first stone.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you call the truth blame it is time to start some soul searching. No matter how you slice it, Gingrich and the Republican Congress showed incredible fiscal discplline, and they sent Clinton budgets that drastically reduced spending.

You may disagree with the cuts, but the bottom line is the Republicans were pushing for more fiscal discipline and Clinton fought against it. He wielded his veto to increase spending.

You may argue about the merits of the cuts, but there is no question that in this dispute the Repubicans were on the side of fiscal discipline.

Sigh. You're right. It's a pity that Clinton rejected all of their initiatives -- if he hadn't, he might have balanced the Federal budget.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky


You may argue about the merits of the cuts, but there is no question that in this dispute the Repubicans were on the side of fiscal discipline.

Oh, my. I remember the halcyon days when the GOP was called the party of fiscal discipline, and noone even snickered in response.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sigh. You're right. It's a pity that Clinton rejected all of their initiatives -- if he hadn't, he might have balanced the Federal budget.

ummm Congress balances budgets.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
outside of racial fear mongoring how do you explain the way the Dems get something like 90% of the vote in black inner cities? let he who is w/o sin cast the first stone.

I think the Dems on the inside prefer to use "plantation politics" rather than racial fear mongering. It is more evocative of their glory days before the Republicans ended slavery and forced the dems to respect the human rights, freedom and dignity of all persons, regardless of race.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
outside of racial fear mongoring how do you explain the way the Dems get something like 90% of the vote in black inner cities? let he who is w/o sin cast the first stone.

Since I have some respect for inner-city dwelling blacks, I would look for an explanation that has something to do with their deciding to vote for candidates who will represent their interests and beliefs, rather than assume that they are easily fear-mongered, etc. But, hey, that's just me.

Originally posted by Penske
I think the Dems on the inside prefer to use "plantation politics" rather than racial fear mongering. It is more evocative of their glory days before the Republicans ended slavery and forced the dems to respect the human rights, freedom and dignity of all persons, regardless of race.

Republicans like you respect the freedom and dignity of blacks be dismissing their voting decisions as "plantation politics"? Huh.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm Congress balances budgets.

According to Spanky, Clinton vetoed all the Congressional efforts to cut spending.

Are you saying that Congress passed tax increases to balance the budget?


Or did you just forget that whole "checks and balances" thing? Not surprising, given your President's attitude towards same.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since I have some respect for inner-city dwelling blacks, I would look for an explanation that has something to do with their deciding to vote for candidates who will represent their interests and beliefs, rather than assume that they are easily fear-mongered, etc. But, hey, that's just me.



Republicans like you respect the freedom and dignity of blacks be dismissing their voting decisions as "plantation politics"? Huh.

I live in the area in a neighbourhood where the majority of people are of colour, and my experience from candidate forums, town halls etal, is that the Dems employ racial fear mongering.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I live in the area in a neighbourhood where the majority of people are of colour, and my experience from candidate forums, town halls etal, is that the Dems employ racial fear mongering.

In other words, your neighbors can't think for themselves. The black ones, anyway. Do they appreciate it when you tell them about how you respect their freedom and dignity, or do they react like they've been brainwashed by the Democrats?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand the desire to pretend like the Republicans never had a Southern Strategy, never tried to avoid racism to attract white voters in the South, and never tried to use the Civil Rights Act against the Dems.

But when your own party chair apologizes to the NAACP for the party having done just that, it's a little hard to make that denial work.

Credit should go to Eisenhower for what he did during his administration, whatever the reason. The Dems were pretty wishy-washy about civil rights until Kennedy and, even more so, Johnson, and the real birth of the Southern Strategy was Barry Goldwater's campaign. FDR won sizable black votes based more on his economic policy than his support for civil rights, which was often lukewarm.

And the huge black vote for Democrats comes after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Imagine that.