Religions are largely kept together by the faith of the followers as opposed to proof. Whether it’s Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion, it’s not science or empirical evidence that keeps millions or billions of people believing, it’s faith. Indeed, religions are full of claims that our current scientific knowledge would say are impossible, but nonetheless, faith persists. Given horrific events that seem to fly in the face of what one would expect from a compassionate or just God, faith still persists. Believers believe, and they interpret events in their lives and the world in a way that comports with their religion. At the end of the day, religion is about faith, period.
By the above measure, liberalism is a religion. How else would it be possible that in the face of a history of demonstrable failure that there are those who continue to believe? Liberalism, in the form of outright Communism failed miserably everywhere from the Soviet Union to Cuba and a multitude of places in between. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of socialism has failed miserably across Europe as practically the entire continent is floundering in mounting debt, double digit unemployment and depressingly low growth rates. Yet the faith remains. Liberalism in the form of Democrat party policies have destroyed wide swaths of America’s landscape, from cities like Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia to black families that suffer from unprecedented rates of unemployment, unwed motherhood and tragically high rates of crime. Yet the faith remains.
Add willfully blind faith to presence of an anointed one among us and you get a cult. Which is exactly what liberalism and the virtual worship of Barack Obama has become:
Obamacare: Every day seems to bring new information that only adds to the understanding that Obamacare is a disaster of epic proportions. Yet faith remains.
Economic Growth: Barack Obama’s “recovery” has been the worst since the Great Depression and incomes have fallen over $4,000 per household since he took office. Yet the faith remains.
Welfare: Welfare has become so generous that in 35 states, it’s actually more profitable to sit at home and collect welfare benefits than it is to go out and find a job. In Hawaii the pretax wage equivalent of welfare benefits is $60,590 per year. In Washington DC it’s $50,820 while in Massachusetts it’s $50,540. Those are dollars that have to be paid for by taxes on those working. Yet the faith remains.
Race: In less than 50 years from the day Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial the United States elected a black man as president, twice! Yet race relations in the United States are worse than they have been in decades. Yet the faith remains.
On virtually every single empirically measurable measure, from education to economic growth as well as simple observable measures such as regulation and freedom, liberalism has been a failure in general and particularly so under Barack Obama. Yet, despite the fact that the consequences of this failure hurts the very people it’s supposed to help, the faith remains.
While the 1st Amendment enshrines the notion of freedom of religion, today the United States is being governed by the cult of liberalism, which seems more like a religion than many of the mainstream religions in the world.
It demands subservience to its policies and is willing to use the police power of the state to impose them while nonbelieving infidels must be marginalized. Speak critically of the Messiah and you are a racist. Disagree with gay marriage you’re a homophobe. Suggest that its culture and unwed motherhood that are ravaging black families and again you’re a racist. Advocate for limited government or state’s rights and you’re an extremist. Promote school choice and you don’t care about children. Advocate for lower taxes and you’re greedy. Champion free markets and you’re a selfish capitalist. Question man made global warming and you’re anti-science. Disagree and you must be discredited and vilified.
Liberals often champion a wall of separation between church and state. This may be the one time they might actually be right about something. However it isn’t Christianity that the country needs to be saved from, it’s the secular religion of Liberalism with Barack Obama as its messiah.
See author page
@Richard Wheeler:
That MSNBC host who refused to admit that Alger Hiss waz a communist spy.
Any leftist who thinks Keynesian economics works.
Any leftist who claims the soviet union “didn’t do Marxism correctly”
There are three just off tbe top of my head.
@Richard Wheeler:
So the Southern voters were “overwhelmingly Repub. from 1968? Really?
Then explain how in 1992 Bill Clinton took Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida and Kentucky; all considered to be “Southern” States. Explain why La., Ms., Ala., and Ga., after they threw out the Republicans in the 1870’s-1880’s, had Democrat governors until La. elected a Republican in 1980.
As to the guys in the hoods, the state with the largest KKK membership was Indiana. Last time I checked, it was above the Mason/Dixon line.
This from a guy who said that people should be in church on Sunday mornings? What exactly do you have against evangelicals? Do the members of your church that are evangelicals know you hold them in scorn?
@Tom:
Tom, stop embarrassing yourself.
Unfortunately, you don’t realize that Barry Goldwater had voted FOR all previous “civil rights” legislation. The reason he voted against the 1964 bill was not because he opposed “civil rights” but because he opposed the government’s fist on business (i.e. Goldwater supported the “right to refuse service” when it came to a privately owned business).
I am a Constitutional conservative. That is your answer.
It’s always good to see that people who don’t tow the line of the left are regarded as racists. Anyone who is from the South, conservative, votes Republican, or doesn’t watch MSNBC are racists. My guess is if we were to look at those making the insinuations, we would find that they live in all white or predominately white neighborhoods, have all white or predominately white friends, and have all white or predominately white coworkers. In other words they, like most everyone else, feel more comfortable associating with their own race. Time to get off the moral high ground.
As for the insinuations that Barry Goldwater was racist because he didn’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, here are some tidbits: he was instrumental in desegregating the Arizona National Guard 2 years BEFORE Truman moved to desegregate the U.S. military, he was a co-founder of the Arizona NAACP, and he supported civil rights legislation in the 1950’s. The reason why he opposed the CRA of 1964 was on constitutional grounds.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3013908/posts
http://historymania.com/american_history/Barry_Goldwater
If you don’t believe those sources, here he is in his own words:
And if that’s not enough, here is what MLK said about him. He states quite clearly he was NOT a racist even though he opposed CR legislation.
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_goldwater_barry_m_1909_1998/
This self righteous shit of insinuating that people who aren’t from the North or who aren’t liberal democrats are racists is getting quite old and tiresome. This may be hard to do, but please check your facts before implying someone is racist just because they don’t agree with your politics. Here’s a little hint: not everything revolves around race.
@another vet:
For people like Tom it does. I suspect he is either a white guy so racked with white “guilt” that he is barely functional or he’s a black guy who auditioning to be Al Sharpton’s successor.
@retire05:
Which conveniently brings us back to the question no one wants to answer: “would one associate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with Conservatism or Liberalism? What about a President sending Federal troops to Alabama in 1965, because the State wouldn’t ensure the safety of Civil Rights marchers?”
@retire05: I mentioned to Aqua above the Clinton 92 96 and Carter 76 exceptions.Of course the reason was they were both Native Sons.
Again, I’m not talking about Congressional or Gubernatorial races.
The few Evangelicals in my Methodist Church know I disagree with many of their views. We are still friends as most are former Marine Officers which trumps everything.
@another vet:
Did someone say Barry Goldwater was a racist? No, but I assume that comment was aimed at me. I wrote that he didn’t support Civil Rights, specifically, he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you want to equate the two, that’s your choice. But, please, don’t put words in my mouth.
This goes directly to my original comment on this post, which no one apparently wants to engage with. Was Civil Rights legislation a conservative or liberal solution to segregation and racial injustice? Goldwater clearly sees it as a liberal solution: ” “I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgment of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina. . . . That is their business, not mine. I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned . . . [and] should not be effected by engines of national power.”
You have to give the man credit. Unlike any of the conservatives on this comment thread, he’s not afraid to state he doesn’t support Civil Rights legislation based on his political philosophy.
@Tom:
I think you don’t know the difference between Conservatism and Liberalism. You are wanting to apply modern day definitions to those two. The CRA and VRA are traditional liberalist views, you know, like Washington, Adams, Madison and Jefferson held.
Liberalism, as it originally existed, is long gone. Now the Democrats have morphed into the Progressive Party with idols like Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ, all three racists themselves. It constantly amazes me that a organization designed to help minorities with education is named after the biggest racist this country ever elected, Woodrow Wilson. Revisionist history at its finest.
What about it?
@Richard Wheeler:
Clinton was a native son of Arkansas, not Florida, or Louisiana, or Tennessee, or Georgia. Those states didn’t care about Clinton’s birth location. And the “native son” philosophy didn’t hold for Al Gore who couldn’t even take his own state.
Ummm, most Marine Officers, active and retired, that I know say wife and children trump everything.
@retire05: 05 You continue to give some very bizarre responses. How ya feeling?
@Tom: Your statement on Goldwater:
That to me links Goldwater to Buckley who clearly invoked race amongst other things as a reason for opposition. Since you quoted Buckley but chose not to state Goldwater’s position it gives the impression their reasons were the same.
From Rich:
As for the rest of my statement about being sick of listening to how people who aren’t from the North and who aren’t liberal democrats being called racists:
From you:
From Rich:
It sure seems like the equations are quite simple: non-dem=racist or non-lib=racist. Perhaps you guys can elaborate because it sure seems you are lumping people into the racist category based on political affiliation or political beliefs and it’s not the first time these views have been pushed on FA.
I live in a northern very blue state and know plenty of card carrying democrats who are the biggest racists I’ve ever met. Per one when Herman Cain was coming out on top in the polls in the Republican Primary: “Well it looks like our choice is going to be between two fucking n******.” Staying true to his deep blue roots, he voted for Obama a second time (most likely a very conflicted choice) as well as every other democrat on the ballot. He’s not the exception either.
@retire05:
Yes,we are all well aware of 18th Century history and political philosophy. This response is pure avoidance. Your answer to my question is that you simply will not furnish a direct answer.
The CRA and the VRA are examples of the Federal Government solving problems that were largely regional, with measures that weren’t supported at the local level. Apparently, you, at one time, supported these measures, perhaps in hind sight because of their efficacy, or at the time because of what they remedied. But that support came with a price, as now you can only (sort of) admit it as long as you can pretend the Acts weren’t prime examples of modern, post-New Deal liberal policy. You also, as we both know, supported the overturn of portions of the VRA this year. So your entire squirmy response is riddled with equivocation and inconsistency, but mostly with lack of backbone: you can’t come out and state plainly what you believe and stand by it.
@Richard Wheeler:
Never better. And working hard to make sure that we never made a mistake as big as Obama ever again.
How you feeling? Feeling good about this current administration that refuses to give the Fort Hood victims the same rights that any other soldier wounded on the battle field would get? Or do you agree with the Administration that the Fort Hood massacre was just “workplace violence?”
@Tom:
THAT, Tom, is exactly why I am no longer a Democrat. But you will sing the praises of LBJ, and every other Democrat, being too clueless to understand that they did not give a tinker’s damn about black people. All they saw were votes. Nothing has changed. Except that some black Americans are beginning to see reality and understand that they were used like all other useful idiots.
What you want, Tom, is to compare apples to fence posts and then claim that someone is avoiding answering your questions. You’re a fraud, Tom. You don’t want answers to questions; you want to preach and ridicule.
@retire05: I would say , and we’ve seen many Conservatives at F.A in agreement, your brand of politics only hurts the chances of beating the Dem. nominee in 2o16.
Semper Fi
@another vet:
Fair enough. You are correct I did not draw a clear distinction of the reasons for their opposition.
Let’s back up 0ne second. Every time I discuss the Civil Rights Era with a conservative, invariably I am told that I, as a liberal, must therefore answer for the sins of Southern Democrats who were members of that party before I was even born. I’m not asking anyone to feel guilty for things done by others fifty years ago, just like I don’t think I should have to answer for the Democratic Party of the Segregated South. But the simple, inescapable truth is that, as Rich stated, on an aggregate basis, the southern, white vote migrated from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party at the same time that the Democratic Party embraced Civil Rights. So that is the response i will give every time. My initial comment on this thread was to point out that the Civil Rights Act and the VRA were extraordinarily successful pieces of legislation, and they were – by any political metric – liberal in conception and execution. The reason I brought this up is that the OP seems to float this idea that the current racial situation in America has no antecedent, and that liberal attitudes about race exist in some trouble-making vacuum, as it they’re not informed by either 200 plus years of history, or fifty years of extraordinarily successful liberal policy. That’s just plain garbage. If you want to debate that point, be my guest, or we can just keep calling each other racists, which is the track individuals like Ditto and Retire05 are desperate to send the conversation down.
@Richard Wheeler:
Yeah, so I was already told, back in 1980.
And why do you feel the need to drag others into your argument with the “we’ve seen many Conservatives at F.A in agreement” crap? Are you not man enough to debate on your own? Do you need backup?
@Tom:
Pot, meet Kettle.
05 Simply stating the truth, which so often seems to unnerve you.
@Richard Wheeler:
Oh? Documented where?
Who ever said it was only white votes that made the difference in the South? Blacks and other minorities who were no longer intimidated away from the polls and were free from all the despicable election practices of the Southern Democratic party following the passage of the VRA, along with Democrats who were disgusted with the open racism of their party very well could have turned the tide in favor of the Republicans. Once the Dixie Democrats clocks were cleaned in the elections following the civil rights reforms, they had to seriously rethink their whole campaign strategy. So they jumped on the progressive entitlements bandwagon to buy votes back.
@Tom:
Where pray tell in this discussion did I call you or anyone else posting a racist?
@Richard Wheeler:
The truth, Richard, is subjective. And actual truth does not unnerve me.
You seem to think that I should care or value what your “other conservatives” here have to say. Sorry to inform you, that is not the case. Nothing written here is carved in stone or will be remembered for the ages. I also don’t consider you the arbiter of who, and who’s not, a conservative as you sit on your progressive perch. I just think it’s a bit odd that a man who signs off with “Semper Fi” needs to try to recruit/invite backup for your opinions by dragging others into the mix.
@Richard Wheeler:
Didn’t know that. I love Florida, it is probably my favorite State. Good ole southern people and beautiful beaches.
There are 14 States that are considered the Confederate South.
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
I’d like to point out that Kentucky remained neutral during the CW and West Virginia seceded from Virginia because of the CW. I have no idea why those two states are in the group.
Anyway, five of those States voted for Eisenhower in 1952, including Florida and Texas. In 1956, that number rose to seven…..clearly half of the Confederate South voted republican. In 1960, four of the States voted for Nixon over Kennedy and two of the States (Alabama and Mississippi) voted for Harry Byrd.
1964 saw Goldwater receive five of the Southern States.
Nixon didn’t sweep the south in 1968; he got seven of the Southern States, Humphrey got Texas and West Virginia, and George Wallace got the remaining five.
In 1972, all of the Confederate South voted for Nixon; but so did every other State in the Union except Massachusetts.
Nope, and I think I just proved that it wasn’t a major switch.
@Tom:
I think my post above shows this statement to be inaccurate, especially the “inescapable truth” part.
@Tom: The Civil Rights movement was not limited to liberals or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nor was it just about race as demonstrated by the reasons for Goldwater’s opposition. It was supported by a coalition of liberals, moderates, and conservatives unless of course you consider the likes of Ike and Goldwater to be liberal. Contrary to revisionist history that seems to be popping up as of late on FA about how Ike, and even more absurdly Reagan, would no longer be a Republican today, Ike was a conservative. Look at his campaigns, his presidency, and the attacks made by the liberals of the day. He endorsed Goldwater for POTUS in 1964. Did he have differences with some conservatives in the Republican Party? Yes. Goldwater and Reagan had their differences as well. One thing about conservatives is that don’t march in lock step anywhere near as much as those on the left do. It has been seen here countless times on FA.
As for your thinking that you are being called a racist, I don’t see it. If people come here and constantly make comments like all the racist Democrats became racist Republicans, it implies that there aren’t any racist Democrats and all the racists are Republicans. Do you think people are going to roll over and play dead for those types of insinuations?
I stick to my observation that most people are more comfortable with their own race. Most neighborhoods in this country are predominately one race or the other. Most people associate mostly with their own race. Does that mean all of them are racist? No. But they are not “pure” either. One of my sister’s good friends wanted her kids to be raised in an area where they would be exposed different cultures, races, and ethnic groups. She moved the family from an all white suburb to one of the racially and ethnically mixed neighborhoods in Chicago. She put her money where her mouth is when it comes to race etc. Most people in this country wouldn’t do that but still try claiming the moral high ground on race. I call B.S. unless of course they do as my sister’s friend did.
As a note. There roughly 43 sentences in the OP. Of those four, or roughly 9% of the verbiage, of the OP involved race. Somewhere, somehow this post became exclusively about race when it was supposed to be about liberalism in general. There is a definite preoccupation with race.
@Ditto: Given the vote, Blacks in the South have voted solidly Dem since 68. For POTUS, Whites in the South have voted solidly Repub. since 68 unless they were voting for confirmed racists like Wallace in 72., or for Natives of the South like Carter 76 and Clinton 92 and 96. Reasons other than Civil Rights passage have been given and debated.
Aqua Again, thank you for the input which I believe pretty much confirms what Tom and i have been saying. Thanks for the reminder of Wallace.’s importance in Southern politics in late 60’s and 70’s.
Note Southern Repubs of 2012 like you and Aye, who I respect greatly, are not your father’s Repubs of late 60’s and 70’s.
Racism continues to exist North and South. Great strides have been made.Let’s move FORWARD together.
A.V. Nuff said by me.
@Richard Wheeler:
I don't know that it conforms what you've been saying. even with the Wallace in 1968 stuff. Texas went for Humphrey…..seriously……Texas…..Humphrey.
But this brings something up that I think is even bigger. Goldwater was actually pro Civil Rights, he just didn't like the Civil Rights Law as written. Not because he didn't believe in Civil Rights, but because the law granted too much power to the federal government.
To me, it seems that in the opinion of the left, if you are not in favor of a law you are against the concept. That's just not true. I'm in favor of everyone having healthcare, I'm not in favor of it being done by the federal government. I'm in favor of non-discrimination, I am not in favor of the federal government deciding whether or not I discriminated. Believe it or not, I'm in favor of college being free, but I am not in favor of the federal government being in charge or the federal tax payers footing the bill. I think the States should do it if they want to. I've said it before, in Georgia, everyone has the opportunity to go to college for free as long as they maintain a 3.0 GPA and attend an accredited Georgia college.
So just because those of us on the right do not like a bill or a law, it doesn't mean we don't like the concept behind it. It may just be that we don't like it adding to the size and power of our federal overlords.
@Aqua: Texas went for Humphrey because he’d been LBJ’s loyal Veep. That loyalty probably cost him The Presidency in an extremely close loss to Nixon in 68.
Truly enjoyed your comments, an example of why I respect you so much. I feel the same about Mata,Aye and Word who would most likely echo your sentiments in the same intelligent manner.
@Richard Wheeler:
Kind of hard to do when people continue to scream racism at every turn when modern liberal policies are questioned. This thread is living proof of that.
Further evidence that all the racist Democrats left and became racist Republican is garbage. Do you think these cities are blue or red? Are they all in the South?
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-segregated-cities-in-america-2011-3?op=1
@another vet: We’ve been reminded by Aqua that a lot of racist Dems. left to become racist supporters of George Wallace.
Thanks for your input. Reminds us racism still exists throughout this great country, though it is decreasing.
Economic inequality is increasing.
@Richard Wheeler:
Define your “documented” claims with references for your documentation. You claimed that racist Democrats moved to the Republican party, but you provide no proof. While Aqua’s facts show that some Democrats voted Republican, it does not do not support your claim. Nothing you have provided has proven that those who switched and voted Republican were the racists of the party. Where is the the demographic proof to support your claim? It is inconceivable that diametrically opposed racists would suddenly turn around and vote for the party that fought and succeeded in breaking their bigoted political machine. Pro-segregation Democrats without a doubt continued to vote for fellow racists such as:
Bull Connor
Robert Byrd
George Wallace
Al Gore Sr.
Orval Faubus
Lester Maddox
Ross Barnett
Black Activists Sue Democrat Party For History of Racism & Abuse
@Ditto: Once again I STRESS I’m only talking about POTUS ELECTIONS, not Senatorial os Gubernatorial.
Let’s find agreement first. The African American vote in The South as defined by Aqua has been solidly BLUE SINCE 68.
White Southerners solidly Blue from post reconstruction through 64.Aqua confirms exceptions including Ike’s landslide wins in 52 and 56. From 68 through 2012 Southern Whites have voted Red in POTUS exceptions noted by Aqua and Reto5 in Sons of the South Carter 76 and Clinton 92 96. Further noted by Aqua was strength of confirmed racist Wallace in his Pres.bids. His votes obviously gleaned from previous to 1968 Dem. voters You may draw your own conclusions from what Aqua and I have posted.
What’s your guess on % of Blacks that support Perryman’s lawsuit? over/under is !%
@Richard Wheeler:
I'm having a problem drawing conclusions from your posts Rich. If you're trying to say the Civil Rights Act is responsible for the South turning red, I just don't see it.
We have dems that were against the act remaining in the democrat party with the exception of Helms and Thurmond. So in an act of revolt, the South turned to the republicans that were responsible for breaking the filibuster that created the Civil Rights Act? People like Donald Rumsfeld, a congressman from the North Shore district in Illinois who voted for the Civil Rights Act?
I'm flummoxed. You only want to talk about Presidential elections but discuss the South going from deep blue to deep red after the Civil Rights act. Nothing could be further from the truth. Georgia's congressional delegation was overwhelmingly democrat until the 1994 republican sweep. Prior to 1965, there were exactly zero republicans in the delegation. After that and prior to 1994, the highest number of republicans in the delegation was two (out of 10).
As far as presidential elections, the South has followed along with pretty much the rest of the country. I just can't seem to find this myth of "deep red" switch you and Tom are pointing to.
@Aqua:
I’m sorry, Aqua, but that’s simply not true. You keep pointing out Democrats who remained Democrats, but that’s a false argument, because no one has stated that every single Democrat switched. Even the most red state will still be roughly 40% blue (and vice versa). It doesn’t take every Democrat to turn Republican to swing a state red, just enough to push the GOP over 50%. Whatever reasons you want to ascribe to it, enough Democrats left the party to to flip formerly blue states red (or in 1968, in some cases, to George Wallace). I don’t see how one can’t take into account the fact that this was an articulated GOP strategy, to play on white frustration with desegregation, considering it actually played out the way they envisioned.
And the South did not followed along with the rest of the country. In the 1964 election,the only states Goldwater took, aside from his native Arizona, were five formerly Confederate states that switched red during a landslide victory for the Democrat, Johnson.
In 1968, the only reason Nixon didn’t take almost the entire South was because George Wallace defected from the Democratic Party and ran for President, on an explicitly segregationist platform, taking five Southern states. So one of the people most historically associated with pro-segregation and an open hostility to integration and the expansion of Civil Rights was able to take five states (10 million popular votes) in a Presidential election in 1968 running as the candidate for an obscure third party. Take a look at the by-county election map. How does one explain these results without factoring disapproval for Civil Rights and desegregation into the equation? Millions of people fled the Democratic party in the South and voted for Nixon and Wallace. Where did they all end up after that?
@Aqua: ” In Prez elections the South has pretty much followed the rest of the country.” Yes and mostly No. Lets look at 9 most Southern states VA. south to FL west to Tex. 2012 7 Repub. 2 Dem. 2008 6 Repub. 3 Dem. 2004 9 Repub 0 Dem. 2000 9 Repub 0 Dem.—4 close elections not close E.C.
Other end 1960 Dems JFK win N.C. S.C, GA AK. TX Repubs Nixon FL VA. Racist Byrd Miss LA CLOSE election
1964 Dems LBJ TX N.C. VA FL. Repubs Goldwater SC GA MISS AK LA The ONLY states other than home state AZ that Goldwater won in this LBJ landslide
1968 Dems HH TX ONLY Repubs VA NC FLA Racist Wallace S.C GA MISS LA AK CLOSE ELECTION
1972 Nixon landslide ALL Southern states Repub
Pattern continues 76-96 2000-2012 Repubs sweep in Reagan and George H landslides Substantially outperform in all other elections through 2012–always have a majority even in losses.
One thing I’ve been reminded of is the Southern strength of racists Byrd and Wallace. Many racist Dems became supporters of these 2 racists. Good riddance to their ilk.
Tom I was working this while you breezed through yours. Youth Thanks
@Tom:
Name them. Name the Democrats who left the party and flipped to the Republican Party that actually held office.
@retire05: Of course Tom’s simple statement is true. Once again he is speaking only of the PRESIDENTIAL elections of 64 68 and beyond. See my more clumsily done #89. The picture has been painted by the voters. Ain’t Democracy grand!
@Richard Wheeler:
Why should we agree with you when you provide nothing to prove your conclusions? Aqua did not define or even mention the African-American vote. What are you defining as “Solidly”? Numbers Richard, give us Numbers! IF you are right and we are wrong, the “documentation” that you claim exists (but never provided,) should show it to be so. Where are your voter breakdowns or exit poll results? Where is the “documented” proof of your and Tom’s claim that the racists of the Democratic party switched their party affiliation to Republican? Not only have you not proved your argument, you ignore that (as Aqua pointed out,) racist segregationist Democrats continued to receive Democrat votes after the fight for civil rights. Tom and you have continued to spout this unsupported myth ‘that racist Democrats left the party and became Republicans,’ as a means to try to claim that this (the Carter campaign myth) thus proves Republicans are racists, yet neither of you can come up with the evidence to prove your slander.
@Ditto: See Tom’s #88 documented or my #89 for breakdown of 64 and 68 elections showing the switch of Southern Dems Tom’s younger and smarter than me.Probably not better looking.
You might note I amended my statement to note many racist Dems, switched to become supporters of racist Wallace.
BTW I have never claimed that today’s Repubs. North or South are racist.
Semper Fi
@Ditto:
You’re the one who keeps trying to turn this into pissing match about racism. In fact, you’re the first one to throw out such an accusation, in post 20. I’m talking about support for Civil Rights legislation. If you think the only reason one might be against desegregation and Civil Rights legislation is racism, well that’s revealing. I certainly haven’t made that claim. Also, like your friend, Retire05, you tend to use party affiliation or political affiliation interchangeably, whenever it’s convenient for you. Southern Democrats in the 1950s were not liberals, so what they thought about anything is completely irrelevant to me. The Civil Rights Act and the VRA are decidedly liberal pieces of legislation. They were uniformly supported by liberals and, to their credit, by many moderate Republicans. They were not supported by Southern conservatives, or right wing types like the John Birch Society.
The voting patterns in the South during the 60s and how they correlated to the support for Civil Rights are very clear. For decades the South voted Democrat. 1964, the very year that a sitting Democratic President and his party were championing Civil Rights, specifically the Civil Rights Act, huge numbers of Southern voters voted for Barry Goldwater, a conservative who was against the CRA, allowing him to take five Southern states that were previously solidly Democratic, despite the fact the election was a Democratic landslide. In 1968, George Wallace was the most vehemently pro-segregation candidate, followed by Nixon’s more muted Southern Strategy. Hubert Humphries was a pro-Civil Rights liberal, and the South split between Wallace and Nixon. In 1972 Wallace tried to win the Democratic nomination and was widely supported in the South, but when the nomination went to the liberal McGovern, the South went uniformly for Nixon. It’s really not that complicated. The Southern, white, conservative vote tracked with the candidate most opposed to Federal Civil Rights legislation during the entire era, and the Democratic party never really regained those voters after embracing Civil Rights.
@Richard Wheeler:
Ha. I think we’re both banging out heads against the wall at this point, so we’re not doing much for our looks.
@Tom: There it is. I’ m going to the gym and taking a long weekend break from F.A.
Gotta do some reading to keep up with the Col. Happy Labor Day weekend to ALL.
Go Irish
@Richard Wheeler:
No one said that you did. However you did say without any evidence to back it up the following:
And Tom said much the same:
Clearly you both support the perpetually false Democratic narrative & myth (debunked by Aqua and others.) that ‘most of the racist Democrats switched and became Republican party members.’ Tom tries disingenuously to give the credit for the pushing of civil rights legislation to “liberals” but the credit belongs to the Republicans who starting with the Eisenhower administration. Later many Northern Democrats jumped on the civil rights bandwagon.
Yes, the Constitutional Conservatives of the Republican party felt very good about their ” legislative contributions to the triumph of the Civil Rights movement” against the Democrats of the day. And yes, I did answer Tom’s question although he continued to pretend afterwards that no one addressed it:
@Ditto:
Maybe we missed your answer because it’s just about as vague a platitude as anyone who has read a high school text on politics could devise. Perhaps you could condescend to the little people down here, on Earth, who don’t read minds. Do you have anything at all to say, we wonder? Specifically, how exactly do you square what you’ve written above about conservatism with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and President Johnson sending Federal troops to Alabama in 1965. Seems like a simple question to me. I’ve found being specific helps.
@Tom: #27
I have four simple questions for you, Tom?
(1) Should a person be required to be a US citizen to vote?
(2) Should a persone have to prove they are a US citizen to vote?
(3) How many times should a person be allowed to vote?
(4) If you said “Yes” to question number 1, but “No” to question number 2, how do YOU suggest to make sure ONLY US CITIZENS VOTE, and that they only vote once?
@retire05: #32
Let’s not forget about obama opening his donation web site to ALL countries, not just the USA.
@another vet: #83
Morgan Freeman has the way to end racism. He was asked by someone on 60 Minutes, “How do you end racism?” He gave a four word answer that will end racism if they are applied: “Don’t talk about it.”
I would like to see his birthday declared, Don’t talk about it day. Everybody would be asked not to talk about racism on that day, even the propaganda media. If it works, then maybe it could be stretched into two days, then three, then a week, then a month, then a year, then each year we would have one year of, “Don’t talk about it”. I would also like to have one year each year of, “Don’t write about it”, starting now.