What Would Jack Kemp Do?

[Koko78]

Just not an honest, fair one.

 

Are you saying George Wallace would have been a Democrat is he were a politician today?

"If any demonstrator lays down in front of my car, it will be the last car he lays down in front of." That guy?

 

I like how you ignore the fact that he WAS a democrat to fit your little narratives. Much like you guys ignore the KKK is the militant wing of the Democratic party.

 

Deny, deflect, attack the messenger, and then claim it doesn't matter. The Clinton strategy is still alive and well for the left.

[boyst]

GOP is on the ropes.

 

But I agree, smart and respectable men on BOTH sides of the aisle are always a good thing.

the GOP is on the ropes. That's rich.

 

2018 will be a wake-up call for ya

[Koko78]

the GOP is on the ropes. That's rich.

 

2018 will be a wake-up call for ya

 

They'll declare moral victories and a clear mandate to "#resist" when they lose be slightly less than their usual margin of loss in GOP districts.

[Kelly the Dog]

I like how you ignore the fact that he WAS a democrat to fit your little narratives. Much like you guys ignore the KKK is the militant wing of the Democratic party..

LOL. Good one.

I'll take your lead in as a rejection of the olive branch and my offer of a return to civility?

 

To your second paragraph: I don't remember mentioning George Wallace. I think you're the first to bring him up. Is it your assertion that someone espousing his views would be welcomed as a representative of the Republican Party?

 

My assertion is that the narrative of a migration of racists into the Republican Party over civil rights is historically inaccurate.

You don't believe there is real racism, or it has diminished to the point that it is marginal, and minorities only real problems is they don't try hard enough or not smart enough to get as many jobs in the fair marketplace as whites. Because that is what you're saying when you say that it's all socio-economic despite the claim that poor whites suffer, too, which is wholly true.

[DC Tom]

LOL. Good one.

You don't believe there is real racism, or it has diminished to the point that it is marginal, and minorities only real problems is they don't try hard enough or not smart enough to get as many jobs in the fair marketplace as whites. Because that is what you're saying when you say that it's all socio-economic despite the claim that poor whites suffer, too, which is wholly true.

 

Of course real racism exists. And it will until a black man is elected President.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'll take your lead in as a rejection of the olive branch and my offer of a return to civility?

 

To your second paragraph: I don't remember mentioning George Wallace. I think you're the first to bring him up. Is it your assertion that someone espousing his views would be welcomed as a representative of the Republican Party?

 

My assertion is that the narrative of a migration of racists into the Republican Party over civil rights is historically inaccurate.

You're wrong. The racists were always there, just as they were with the Southern Dems. The Blacks moving away from the party of Lincoln was a big sea change, along with earlier industrialization and the migration to the Urban north

 

There was a big migration of the races from GOP to the dems after 1927 as there was a migration from the dems to GOP in the 60s. Whites getting away from the Blacks. Yeah, Vietnam muddied it a bit.

 

There is the 40 year migration, big change of seas. It started with the Blacks moving away from the GOP.

 

1972 sealed it:

 

[Kelly the Dog]

Of course real racism exists. And it will until a black man is elected President.

I'm really sick of that argument, Tom. It's beneath you. Obama was not a real black President. If we were serious about race in this country we would elect a Kenyan, the real kind of darkie, with a nose bone.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'm really sick of that argument, Tom. It's beneath you. Obama was not a real black President. If we were serious about race in this country we would elect a Kenyan, the real kind of darkie, with a nose bone.

Yeah... A ChiKan Hawaiian... Are you kidding me?

[B-Man]

Let's take a brief look at each myth in turn.

 

Myth Number One: In order to be competitive in the South, Republicans started to pander to white racists in the 1960s.

 

Fact: Republicans actually became competitive in the South as early as 1928, when Republican Herbert Hoover won over 47 percent of the South's popular vote against Democrat Al Smith. In 1952, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower won the southern states of Tennessee, Florida and Virginia. And in 1956, he picked up Louisiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, too. And that was after he supported the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools; and after he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock Central High School to enforce integration.

 

 

Myth Number Two: Southern Democrats, angry with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, switched parties.

 

Fact: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act, just one became a Republican. The other 20 continued to be elected as Democrats, or were replaced by other Democrats. On average, those 20 seats didn't go Republican for another two-and-a-half decades.

 

 

Myth Number Three: Since the implementation of the Southern Strategy, the Republicans have dominated the South.

 

Fact: Richard Nixon, the man who is often credited with creating the Southern Strategy, lost the Deep South in 1968. In contrast, Democrat Jimmy Carter nearly swept the region in 1976 - 12 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in 1992, over 28 years later, Democrat Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia. The truth is, Republicans didn't hold a majority of southern congressional seats until 1994, 30 years after the Civil Rights Act.

 

As Kevin Williamson of the National Review writes: "If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so. They say things move slower in the south -- but not that slow."

 

 

So, what really happened? Why does the South now vote overwhelmingly Republican? Because the South itself has changed. Its values have changed. The racism that once defined it, doesn't anymore. Its values today are conservative ones: pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-small government.

 

https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/why-did-democratic-south-become-republican

 

 

 

 

Dixie's Long Journey From Democratic Stronghold To Republican ...

www.npr.org/.../dixies-long-journey-from-democratic-stronghold-to-republican-redo...

 

Many Southerners have stood by traditional values on social issues as well — including guns, school prayer, abortion and same-sex marriage. And these voters have found their conservative stands more welcome in the Republican Party than in the Democratic.

 

 

The Myth of Republican Racism - | National Review

www.nationalreview.com/article/386257/myth-republican-racism-mona-charen

[DC Tom]

Because the South itself has changed. Its values have changed. The racism that once defined it, doesn't anymore.

 

 

Yes, it does.

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes, it does.

Do these people just have Leave it to Beaver and My Three Sons and Father Knows Best reruns running on loops 24-7 in their Levittown homes?

[Nanker]

I'll take your lead in as a rejection of the olive branch and my offer of a return to civility?

 

To your second paragraph: I don't remember mentioning George Wallace. I think you're the first to bring him up. Is it your assertion that someone espousing his views would be welcomed as a representative of the Republican Party?

 

My assertion is that the narrative of a migration of racists into the Republican Party over civil rights is historically inaccurate.

Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They led an 83 day filibuster against it.

80% of Republicans in the House voted for it. Only 61% of Dems did.

82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it. Only 69% of Dems did.

[Tiberius]

Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They led an 83 day filibuster against it.

80% of Republicans in the House voted for it. Only 61% of Dems did.

82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it. Only 69% of Dems did.

What is that flag? I have seen it around

Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They led an 83 day filibuster against it.

80% of Republicans in the House voted for it. Only 61% of Dems did.

82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it. Only 69% of Dems did.

Right, those are big Trump states now. KKK Byrd from WV, Big Big Trump land now

 

 

There was a big migration of the races from GOP to the dems after 1927

I think that this process was all through the 1920's as Blacks during WW1 and before and after moved North to the cities and became a part of the northern political machines and major force in Democratic politics and then the Great Depression happened and blacks became a part of the New Deal coalition.

[grinreaper]

What is that flag? I have seen it around

Right, those are big Trump states now. KKK Byrd from WV, Big Big Trump land now

I think that this process was all through the 1920's as Blacks during WW1 and before and after moved North to the cities and became a part of the northern political machines and major force in Democratic politics and then the Great Depression happened and blacks became a part of the New Deal coalition.

Because "I will bankrupt the coal industry".

[Kelly the Dog]

Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV) opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They led an 83 day filibuster against it.

80% of Republicans in the House voted for it. Only 61% of Dems did.

82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it. Only 69% of Dems did.

 

You know that saying first one to use Hitler in an argument loses? It's just as true using first one to use Robert Byrd as a Democrat loses. It proves Exiled in Illinformed's point.

[boyst]

 

Yes, it does.

only to out of towners, asswipe

[grinreaper]

You know that saying first one to use Hitler in an argument loses? It's just as true using first one to use Robert Byrd as a Democrat loses. It proves Exiled in Illinformed's point.

http://observer.com/2010/06/hillary-clinton-remembers-friend-and-mentor-robert-byrd/

[Kelly the Dog]

Also it should be noted that politicians in those days were just as big cowards as they are now. Gore Sr. was up for reelection that year. A vote for Civil Rights in the south (Read: Racist Mofos) was political suicide. He won reelection and then voted for the Civil Rights Bill in 65 the coward.

[row_33]

Wallace took a ton of the Southern vote in 1968 and with the Dems also destroying any self-respect at Chicago in 1968, basically the party couldn't field a serious candidate for President until 1992, there was nowhere else to go for a long time for people who want to work for a living. The clown Carter was a bad LSD flashback that is best forgotten.

 

This could happen again in 2020, would be most amusing.

[Kelly the Dog]

http://observer.com/2010/06/hillary-clinton-remembers-friend-and-mentor-robert-byrd/

That totally ruins your argument, bud. She lies about everything.