More proof that this is not Ronald Reagan’s GOP
“The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a broad party. There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the divergence of views is one of our strengths…
Within our tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over approach and method and even those we choose to implement our philosophy. Seldom, if ever, will we raise a cheer signifying unanimous approval of the decisions reached. But if our philosophy is to prevail, we must at least pledge unified support of the ultimate decision. Unity does not require unanimity of thought.”
– Gov. Ronald Reagan,
in a 1967 speech to California Republicans
——————————–
“In the current climate, the extreme right wing of the party is targeting anyone who doesn’t meet its strict criteria. Its new and narrow litmus test for party membership doesn’t allow compromise….
It’s time for the Republicans who are so bent on enforcing conformity to ask themselves a question: What would Ronald Reagan have done? He worked hard to maintain a welcoming, open and diverse Republican Party. …
We need to remind the Republicans who want to enforce ideological purity that if they succeed, they will undo Reagan’s work to create an inclusive party that could fit many different views.”
– Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times
———————–
“And that’s why the RINOs like Lugar and Hatch have to go. The GOP cannot offer a credible alternative to the destructive hate and social division of the Democrats — the party, let us remember, of slavery, segregation, secularism and sedition — unless it cleans out its own Augean stables first, removes the collaborationists and rejects “bipartisanship” as an absolute good in itself, instead of an occasional, pragmatic means to an end.”
– Michael Walsh,
in an overwrought column in National Review
——————
John Danforth
“If Dick Lugar, having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”
– John C. Danforth, three-term Republican senator from Missouri and former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush.
——————-
“A new poll shows Treasurer Richard Mourdock building a commanding lead over Sen. Richard Lugar.
The Howey/DePauw Indiana Battleground Poll, conducted by two prominent Republican and Democratic pollsters, shows Mourdock with a 48 percent to 38 percent lead over Lugar.
Voters will decide the fate of Lugar, a six-term incumbent, in Tuesday’s primary election. And today Lugar pleaded with all those he has helped in his career, no matter what their political party, to step up and salvage his.
“Every person in Indiana who wants me to continue, every person wherever they might be at this point, I encourage them to come out,” he said. “Come out immediately, as fast as you can.”
The poll’s 10 percentage point deficit for him, Lugar said, is not surprising given the millions of dollars spent by groups that oppose him. Those include the anti-tax Club for Growth and the tea party group FreedomWorks. There has been no similar response from the groups he has helped over the years, he said. He cited farmers, veterans, minorities, students, Jews and others as he appealed for help.
——————-
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
523 comments Add your comment
I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)
May 7th, 2012
6:21 pm
Jay
May 7th, 2012
6:01 pm
“Sucks to be a Black independent in America these days.”
yeah, I’m not the most popular man at some of MY family reunions either.
___________________________________________________________________________
That’s what sucks.
I love talking to people who see things different than I do. That’s one of the ways you grow as a person.
What I hate is the hostility that sometimes go along with it.
F. Sinkwich
May 7th, 2012
6:22 pm
Hey, Jammie.
You loves you some LBJ.
Does the number 58,000 mean anything to you?
Billybob
May 7th, 2012
6:22 pm
jay,
so liberals are on the right side of race and everyone else is not…..brilliant deduction there lib….reread you post and notice the second grade logic….
FYI….
who passed the civil right legislation?
who actually penned the magic negro song?
liberal media constantly brand republicans as racist…..try again lib
I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)
May 7th, 2012
6:22 pm
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
6:03 pm
TBG
I’m was just poking fun about the car wash. I was pretty certain that you were telling it like it was……….
_____________________________________________________________________
Oops…I’m a little slow today.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
6:22 pm
“I worked for Reagan in 1980 & 1984, you again, don’t know what you are talking about. Stick with what you do know.”
Did you ever meet N word dropping and top adivsor and RNC man Lee Atwater?
I will admit, he did apologize for his political shenanigans before his death
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
6:23 pm
Billybob @6:12 pm, what pray tell, are you talking about?
Now, for all of the trolls who usually populate web sites comments sections saying I’m playing the race card, answer this: If I said that Southern whites were a bunch of brainwashed, dead heads who give the GOP their vote, how would you respond?
U.S. Census Bureau statistics show that of the 10 poorest states in America, nine are mostly red states. The lowest when it comes to education? Mostly red states. The most obese? Worst health care? Mostly red states.
So if the talking points suggest the Democrats advance poverty programs more than the GOP; push for more funding for education; and want a strong health care program, then why are these white voters in these mostly red states voting for the GOP? Have they been brainwashed by virtue of the Southern Strategy to keep voting straight ticket?
The GOP has no real plan to even talk to black voters. They are afraid of them. Yes, afraid. If you want to put a Republican in the most uncomfortable position, then see them try to give a speech in front of a room of black folks. There is mistrust on both sides rather than straight talk on the issues.
For years I have lamented the GOP’s refusal to engage African-Americans. We care about housing, economic development, education, any host of issues. But in the minds of a lot of Republicans, it’s all about welfare or affirmative action.
African-Americans are largely social conservatives, but the GOP can’t even figure out how to reach us even with God!
I’m the host of Washington Watch, a weekly Sunday morning news show on TV One Cable Network, a lifestyles and entertainment network targeting African-Americans, and the GOP flat out refuses to even accept our invitations.
For two years we’ve had an open invite for any House or Senate Republican to come on our show, no matter the week. Out of 80-plus shows, Rep. Tom Price of Georgia (twice) and Rep. Allen West of Florida (once) have accepted our invitations.
West sat in my studio and told his press secretary to send an e-mail to every GOP press secretary in the House to tell them that my show was a great forum for them to talk to Black America. None followed his admonition.
When Michael Steele was chairman of the Republican National Committee, he did my show several times. Steele told me he went to the GOP House and Senate leadership to tell them they should accept my invites, but none did.
Now if the GOP is scared to even come on a TV show that targets blacks, do you actually think they’ll show up in a black community?
If the GOP wants black folks to consider voting for them, they their candidates will have to make an effort to reach out. The distrust is wide and great, but it can be overcome. But doing nothing will get you nowhere, other than guarantee that a strong voting bloc will do all it can to make sure you are defeated at the polls.
http://tinyurl.com/88l3fxf
Brosephus™
May 7th, 2012
6:23 pm
Black Americans lean more towards liberal candidates because most major advances that Blacks have achieved has been with the assistance of people who were left of center. Abolitionists were fighting against those who’s more conservative thinking was less receptive to change the status quo, even if they didn’t own slaves themselves.
After the Civil War, Blacks won elections as Republicans with the assistance of Liberal Republicans. They lost those gains when the Liberal Republicans lost power and were being forced out of the party. The gains made in the 1960’s came with the assistance of non-conservative Americans regardless of party affiliation. So, although many Black Americans hold views consistent with modern Conservatives, many follow the path that has been more beneficial to all of us over the course of our history.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
6:23 pm
TBG
“That’s one of the ways you grow as a person.”
great post
Matti
May 7th, 2012
6:24 pm
Con/Vet,
I’m frequently the one at social gatherings trying to defuse political tensions, drawing the focus back around to what we have in common, rather than what divides us. The “they WANT us to be divided” speech I offered earlier is a good one for that. Also, I regularly tell my Dad to ZIP IT, even though I agree with most (but not all) of his positions. “DAD! How is that not RUDE? You’re being RUDE! Stop it!” Seriously. I partake joyously of good eats & drinks offered in a social setting. (BBQ!) It ticks me off when people want to ruin it with politickin’.
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
6:24 pm
You loves you some LBJ.
Sure, liar.
I wrote that on balance he was a decent president, but in your stunted mind that is the equivalent of love.
Grow up.
Or don’t…
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
6:24 pm
taxpayer,
no facts are needed to dispute a leftist liberal’s idea that his political opponents party is not the party of reagan…..it’s his opinion and a couple of quotes don’t make it fact……you libs are slipping
My! How convenient… for you, BillyBob.
Nancy Reagan
May 7th, 2012
6:25 pm
JUST SAY NO to the Republican Party in November!
kayaker 71
May 7th, 2012
6:25 pm
When the liberals win 49 out of 50 states in a national election, they will have something to crow about. Until then, it’s all bull sh*T.
Georgia , The "New Mississippi"
May 7th, 2012
6:28 pm
Black people in particular and minorities in general have never voted GOP because the GOP has never stood up with or for any minority on any issue . This modern day GOP is like the KKK was in the 1900’s. The only difference is the GOP has not worn the hoods in a public setting…………yet
Dems_R_Idiots
May 7th, 2012
6:29 pm
What’s a matter with throwing incumbents out???
F. Sinkwich
May 7th, 2012
6:30 pm
LBJ = decent president with a tally of 58,000
GWB = worst president in the history of the universe
Got it.
I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)
May 7th, 2012
6:30 pm
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
May 7th, 2012
6:07 pm
Well put Brocephus, a tangible explanation that other frequent poster are unable to nut up. Now explain please why the lean toward more liberal candidates?
_____________________________________________________________________
You didn’t ask me but:
Blacks tend to be more socially conservative than not. But, we also recognize that there are times when gov’t is needed to step in to ensure/protect our human rights. Republicians, IMO, tend to push the mantra that “those days are behind us”.
Democrats, at least on the surface, pay lipservice to giving a flying flip about certain struggles that Blacks had/have to endure.
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
6:30 pm
When the post-Reagan Republicans win 49 out of 50 states, they’ll have proven that they can indeed buy and/or steal the votes. Until then, they’ll keep trying.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
6:31 pm
“When the liberals win 49 out of 50 states in a national election, they will have something to crow about. Until then, it’s all bull sh*T.”
It is the one with the majority of electoral college votes: period, plain and simple
Bush was glad of that for sure
If that has changed in any way, please fill us in.
Did Reagan get a set of “kinsu” knives or something in that election?
Jay
May 7th, 2012
6:31 pm
Georgia, I’d say that’s much too harsh an assessment.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
6:33 pm
Georgia
Do not stoop to that poster’s level to make a point
New Freedom Riders Needed
May 7th, 2012
6:33 pm
The South is up to its old ways. New Freedom Riders are needed so that history will not repeat itself. Qualifications needed:
1. Courage
2. Intelligence
3. Non violent behavior
4. Able to travel through major cities and rual communities.
If you feel that you meet the above standards, contact me.
F. Sinkwich
May 7th, 2012
6:33 pm
“Georgia, I’d say that’s much too harsh an assessment.”
Ya think?
Billybob
May 7th, 2012
6:34 pm
taxpayer,
it’s not convenient, its accurate
jam,
liberals and the liberal media, liberal academia, liberal anything and everything brand all republicans racist including black republicans……i believe obama is helping black americans see that a conservative view is an option to the ‘vote for me and i’ll give you stuff’ that dems used to garner black votes…..nice post jam
Paul
May 7th, 2012
6:34 pm
It never ceases to amaze me how our conservative bloggers regularly post no valid counterargument to the thread topic, or they completely ignore it and jump in repeating whatever anti-Obama nonsense they’ve heard that day.
I’d love to be proven wrong, but alas…. it seems not to be…..
real john
May 7th, 2012
6:37 pm
Jay,
As someone who is a regular commentor on your blog, I couldn’t help but notice today that I can hardly remember the last article your wrote about policies the Democrats are currently pushing.
It seems that you have a disproportionate number of articles bashing Republicans than you do praising Democrats. Is it perhaps even you are having a hard time selling Obama and what the Senate is proposing; or is it something else. Its easy to blame someone else for the nation’s problems; however don’t we have a Democrat as President and a Democrat majority Senate??
All I’m saying is that I beleive the Dems are scared to run on their recent accomplishments; instead they are trying to distract. If Obama is really doing so well (as I think you would say that he is), why not more articles highlighting what he has done and why he would be better than Romney??
I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)
May 7th, 2012
6:37 pm
Jay
May 7th, 2012
6:16 pm
________________________________________________________
Jay, you are not Black, so you can’t comment on why Blacks vote for liberals.
F. Sinkwich
May 7th, 2012
6:38 pm
For those of you here who would like to celebrate Jammie’s hero LBJ, you can do it in DC close to the Lincoln Memorial. As you face it, just walk to the right next to the pool. You can’t miss it.
saywhat?
May 7th, 2012
6:38 pm
Republicans aren’t leaving the Republican party, the party is leaving them by moving to the far right. Unfortunately, too many wingnuts are hanging on, refusing to let go, riding it all the way into absurdity.
Jay
May 7th, 2012
6:38 pm
i believe obama is helping black americans see that a conservative view is an option to the ‘vote for me and i’ll give you stuff’ that dems used to garner black votes
See, they just can’t help the condescension.
I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)
May 7th, 2012
6:39 pm
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
6:17 pm
TBG
He really is a cool dude, but when he goes off on some of those conspiracies…. It is a trip to say the least.
I’m sure you have read previous posts on here about both sides being upset about African Americans for Obama, AAs for Bush, etc……….
I’m waiting for him to start “African American for Paul”. No “s” after American because he might be the only one
____________________________________________________________
Billybob
May 7th, 2012
6:39 pm
much too harsh is very eye opening jay………..but typical of leftists, your cohorts always need victims to push forward the progressive idea of cradle to grave nanny state utopia………your nov 7th hangover will be one for the ages jaylo’
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
6:40 pm
“Because liberals fought hard for civil rights.”
And what evidence do you have that conservatives did NOT? Are you prepared to argue that the Christian ministers, for instance, who stood for civil rights would embrace gay marriage, abortions of convenience and the like? Huh?
“Because liberals nominated the first black candidate for president.”
Yeah…and who was the first black Secretary of State? And the second? Did you forget that a number of these same “liberals” demeaned these two as “Uncle Toms”? Or is that an instance of more selective amnesia on your part?
“Because liberals don’t lionize talk-show hosts who broadcast “Barack the Magic Negro.”
Yeah, only talk-show hosts who demean female VP candidates as c**** and worse. There is your war on women for you, Jay. Oh…that’s right…on the same logical grounds that Rice was an Uncle Tom, Palin is not a real woman.
“Because a liberal candidate didn’t choose Philadelphia, Miss., to kick off his presidential campaign with a speech on “states’ rights.”
Puleeasse. Is that all you got? Do you even hear yourself talking?
“Because liberals don’t send emails to each other with pictures of Obama with a bone through his nose.”
Yeah. They do not likewise demonize or demean conservative figures. How much is the cool-aid you are drinking?
So much for what liberals don’t do, Jay. How about some STINKING HONESTY from you about what they have and continue to do that is deplorable? How about acknowledging, for starters, that LBJ was a racist and likely did not pass Civil Rights legislation out of love for n****** (as he was want to call blacks)?
kayaker 71
May 7th, 2012
6:40 pm
Georgia, The new Mississippi, 6:28,
And just what has this marvelous, all knowing Democratic party done for you in the last 50 yrs except pay you lip service about “how much they care”,. News Flash…. they don’t give a tinkers damn about you until election time, then they play you like a fiddle. And you still play the game. Do you think that putting you under the government’s heel has brought you out of the 60s with any dignity? If you are pleased with what the Democratic party has given you, you are part of the problem, certainly not the solution. There are no hoods, anymore. More money has been spent and more laws have been passed on this single issue than any other issue in our history and there are still project housing areas, welfare checks, aid to dependent children, food stamps, cell phone subsidies…. more people on food stamps than at any time in our history and welfare entitlement spending up 41% under Bozo. Is this what you want? Is this how you want to live your life, tied to some government edict and a government check? If you want the government leading you around by the nose, be my guest. But quite frankly, I am sick and tired of paying for it.
Freedom Riders 1961
May 7th, 2012
6:40 pm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
6:42 pm
Republicians, IMO, tend to push the mantra that “those days are behind us”.
To some point that point can be argued that that was their position almost immediately.
Remember their zealous opposition to Affirmative Action from Day 1?
They simply wanted to pretend that with the dismantling of segregation and overt racism in this country that the table was immediately “leveled” and that they had no societal responsibility at all to fulfill any redress of grievances.
I'm a "con" and a vet. STOP SPITTING ON ME!!! (That Black Guy)
May 7th, 2012
6:44 pm
Heading home, I’ll catch up then.
Brosephus™
May 7th, 2012
6:45 pm
That Guy
To your point, that lip service is what gets the vote. When one party basically ignores you while the other talks any game, you tend to go with the one that acknowledges your existence. And as long as the current GOP continues to be tone deaf in regards to the concerns of minorities, the Democratic Party will continue to amass tons of votes with nothing more than lip service.
Jay
May 7th, 2012
6:45 pm
Crier, most of that post doesn’t even deserve a response, but I’m curious: What’s YOUR explanation for why LBJ fought so hard for civil rights, knowing as he did so that he was crippling the Democratic brand in the eyes of many white Southerners?
Why do YOU think he did it?
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
6:46 pm
it’s not convenient, its accurate
Billybob,
The accuracy is in the quotes that Jay provided. How convenient for you to claim otherwise without any factual evidence.
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
6:48 pm
“To your point, that lip service is what gets the vote. When one party basically ignores you while the other talks any game, you tend to go with the one that acknowledges your existence. ”
To borrow from Jay’s stock of metaphors, is that like the drunken husband who, over and over again, says “sorry honey” for years of negligence, broken promises, abuse or the like?
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
6:49 pm
So where IS this mountain of evidence that conservatives fought hard for civil rights?
I’ll tell you where it is, in these right wing blogger’s minds.
In the last forty years, where are all of these conservative names?
I can easily name a hundred or five hundred liberal names. Starting with the 13 people – six blacks and seven whites – on that first Freedom Ride.
Can you guys come up with five???
I doubt it.
Billybob
May 7th, 2012
6:51 pm
that is not condescension jay, it’s your democratic elected politicians doing this and a large number of americans falling for it…….there is a distinction, but i don’t expect you to discern it based on the leftist view you parrot here……..you must pause sometimes though, when you realize that the leftist media no longer has free reign on this issue and conservatives can openly talk about race without being stymied by political correctness anymore……..based on many of your posts and articles here, i would say that, between you and me, i’m not the one with the problems regarding race………..you are the one who always brings the connotation of race with the negative slant always pointed at your political opponents……trust me, it speaks volumes
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
6:52 pm
“Crier, most of that post doesn’t even deserve a response, but I’m curious: What’s YOUR explanation for why LBJ fought so hard for civil rights, knowing as he did so that he was crippling the Democratic brand in the eyes of many white Southerners?
Well I think it most certainly does deserve a response, but I’m curious: why don’t you step up to the plate and acknowledge that a number of liberals are every bit as hateful and mean as the Republicans you cite from time to time?
“Why do YOU think he did it?”
When you give a response, you will get one.
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
6:52 pm
I guess those Bush tax cuts didn’t trickle their way down to some of the Republicans posting on here given that they’re still whining about how they’re sick and tired of paying taxes. I guess they didn’t get the word on the forms of income available tax free to them under the Bush tax cuts. Too bad. Now they’re about to expire.
Freedom Riders
May 7th, 2012
6:52 pm
I hear you JamVet…Can I get you to get on the bus?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kH_EZF0XqM&feature=related
kayaker 71
May 7th, 2012
6:52 pm
Jam Vet, 6:49,
We could start with Abe Lincoln.
Jay
May 7th, 2012
6:53 pm
why don’t you step up to the plate and acknowledge that a number of liberals are every bit as hateful and mean as the Republicans you cite from time to time?
I have no problem acknowledging that whatsoever.
Your turn.
F. Sinkwich
May 7th, 2012
6:55 pm
Jammie’s hero, LBJ, destroyed generations with his “War on Poverty.”
After $5 trillion dollars or more since his ruinous reign, that war is lost, at least for another generation. At best.
Paul
May 7th, 2012
6:57 pm
crier
“Well I think it most certainly does deserve a response, but I’m curious: why don’t you step up to the plate and acknowledge that a number of liberals are every bit as hateful and mean as the Republicans you cite from time to time?
“Why do YOU think he did it?”
When you give a response, you will get one.”
Didn’t you ever learn about taking turns?
See, you make a statement. Someone asks you a question to clarify or provide basis for what you posted.
If you respond by asking them a question without answering, that’s called ‘deflection.’
If you say “I won’t answer you until you answer me’ it’s also called ‘deflection.’
If you say it isn’t, you should know it gives the impression you can’t answer, so you’re stalling.
Or if you do have an answer, you think it’s weak and really don’t want a spotlight on it.
Leastwise, that’s how it comes across.
So….
care to answer the question? I’d imagine more than one blogger’s interested, based upon your earlier assertions.
Billybob
May 7th, 2012
6:57 pm
taxpayer,
let me simplify…..quotes are accurate facts, but opinion based on them is not fact…….again, my statement was accurate that jay’s writing is not a fact even if he pen’s some accurate quotes from the past…..
Paul
May 7th, 2012
6:58 pm
crier
Okay, Jay just answered.
Now you can get back to taking turns.
Your turn.
Uh Oh
May 7th, 2012
7:01 pm
“We could start with Abe Lincoln.”
Good start…….. With that said would you consider the Republicans who voted for civil rights as the center to left of center Republicans that were at one time more prevalent in the Republican Party? maybe a combination including conservatives?
It surely was for the most part the more center to right of center Democrats who fought against civil rights?
And as you well know the “Southern Strategy” that was implemented in the late 60s and used for 30 plus yrs ran many of those southern Democrats over to the Republican Party.
See: LBJ comments about Dems loosing the south after he signed the legislation as well as the apologies from 2 of the last 3 RNC chairmen in regards to the Southern Strategy and the Republicans efforts to exploit racial tension and stereotypes to garner the white southern vote
I see a two way street. How do you see it?
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
7:04 pm
Jam Vet, 6:49,
We could start with Abe Lincoln.
Unf&ckingbelievable.
Abraham Lincoln’s life and work have inspired more books than any other historical figure except Jesus and Shakespeare and attracted some of America’s most renowned writers. But few know him as well as Phillip Paludan, one of our nation’s foremost authorities on Lincoln and the Civil War.
In this long-awaited study, Paludan offers us Lincoln in whole-a complex, even contradictory personality who found greatness without seeking it and who felt deeply troubled about what he perceived as his failings as a president and person.
Opinion has been divided about the real Lincoln. A conservative. A liberal. The great emancipator. A Union preservationist at all cost. But Paludan’s Lincoln is both a constitutionalist and a liberal egalitarian who ultimately saw his efforts to preserve the Union and free the slaves as inseparably linked.
Now show me any evidence that you can to make your case.
Billybob
May 7th, 2012
7:05 pm
taxpayer,
the only whining about taxes is coming from barrack obama who is whining about certain people not paying their fair share while at the same time not defining fair share…..it’s called a political football…..kind of like jay’s column in which he hopes to persuade all of the reagan democrats to stick with obama, you know since today’s gop is not the party of reagan…..wink wink…..that will not work b/c they have already left the democrat party……..
Jay
May 7th, 2012
7:06 pm
Nobody in 1860 considered Abraham Lincoln a conservative. The Republicans back then were radical liberals. The Democrats of Douglas were the conservatives.
Brosephus™
May 7th, 2012
7:06 pm
Towncrier
Nope. It’s like the mall Santa promising you that G.I.Joe with the Kung Fu grip every year and ending up with an empty tree each year.
Paul
May 7th, 2012
7:06 pm
Oh Towncrier
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9Vn5kCasUo
F. Sinkwich
May 7th, 2012
7:07 pm
LBJ decimated the black family.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:09 pm
Bro @ 7:06
That was funny
People on both sides, do not even realize that both Parties make promises for votes that they do not keep…….
Some of the very same people who want to get mad because blacks generally vote Democrat, do not even pay attention to the promises made to them that went unfilled
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
7:10 pm
taxpayer,
let me simplify…..quotes are accurate facts, but opinion based on them is not fact…….again, my statement was accurate that jay’s writing is not a fact even if he pen’s some accurate quotes from the past…..
Billybob,
Quotes are indeed actual facts so why don’t you give us some quotes to counter Jay’s actual facts instead of more of your opinion.
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
7:10 pm
In fact 71, this is the perfect time for an Honest Abe quote…
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. ~Abraham Lincoln
More bad news for your claim…
Lincoln’s base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America’s first “bleeding-heart liberals”).
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
7:11 pm
taxpayer,
the only whining about taxes is coming from barrack obama
Billybob,
Clearly, you missed kayaker’s recent post as well as the GOP’s ongoing mantra regarding taxes.
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
7:13 pm
So, Lincoln was clearly not a conservative.
And other names in that long list of those who fought hard for civil rights?
kayaker 71
May 7th, 2012
7:13 pm
jam Vet, 7:04,
Mr. Paludan was most certainly a liberal writer whose spin has been looked at through many eyes. From time to time, all of us have thoughts and actions that support both liberal and conservative views. I am sure that Lincoln was not exempt. In 1860, however, he accepted the nomination of the Republican convention to be the Republican candidate for president. However you spin it, he was a solid GOP candidate. I am sure glad he won. We might have been an entirely different country otherwise.
Brosephus™
May 7th, 2012
7:13 pm
They BOTH
Exactly!!!!
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
7:15 pm
“Your turn.”
Two reasons: because it was inevitable and for political advantage.
Who worked to get Civil Rights legislation passed in the first place? Eisenhower:
“Civil rights became a critical concern during Eisenhower’s administration. In 1954 the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, but the decision was not universally accepted. The people of the South resisted, and racial tensions mounted. In 1957 the governor of Arkansas ordered National Guard troops to prevent a group of African-American students from enrolling at an all-white high school in Little Rock. Eisenhower was forced to send federal troops to escort the new students to school. Eisenhower also proposed and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was intended to guarantee the voting rights of all African Americans. This was the first civil rights legislation to pass since Reconstruction. It was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which was an attempt to further strengthen voting rights by mandating federal inspection of local voter registration polls.” -ourwhitehouse.org
“The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.” – Wikipedia
“”…LBJ biographer Robert Caro notes that prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation—any civil rights legislation,” including anti-lynching legislation. His private behavior toward blacks was appalling. Robert Parker, LBJ’s longtime black employee and limousine chauffeur, claims that Johsnon blasted him daily with a blizzard of bigoted slurs. And even as LBJ was being praised by liberals for his appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, behind closed doors LBJ’s cynical brand of “identity politics” became clear. As presidential historian Robert Dallek recounts, LBJ explained his decision to a staff member by saying, “”Son, when I appoint a n*****r to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a n*****.” – Hoover Institution
“”These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” – Ronald Kessler’s “Inside The White House”
“”I’ll have those n******s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” — Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One Ronald Kessler’s “Inside The White House” – Ronald Kessler’s “Inside The White House”
Now your turn: do you think he was not racist and political operator and what would you cite as evidence?
Doggone/GA
May 7th, 2012
7:16 pm
“LBJ decimated the black family”
Only one? Pretty good record I’d say.
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
7:17 pm
taxpayer,
let me simplify…..quotes are accurate facts, but opinion based on them is not fact…….again, my statement was accurate that jay’s writing is not a fact even if he pen’s some accurate quotes from the past…..
Billybob,
Further, kindly take a moment and scroll through Jay’s post as I have. I note that he signed the post and he spelled his name accurately. What did you note from his own words that you consider to be inaccurate or non-factual, etc. Just curious.
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
7:17 pm
“Nope. It’s like the mall Santa promising you that G.I.Joe with the Kung Fu grip every year and ending up with an empty tree each year.”
LOL! THAT was good, Brosephus. My hat is off to you for that quotable metaphor.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:17 pm
kayaker
You do know the Parties of today are not the Parties of 40 yrs ago, nevertheless 150 yrs ago, right?
That is good and bad changes for both, but arguing an 1860 platform based on today’s parties is going to be a stretch
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:20 pm
Lee Attwater
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis’ book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater’s name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the 6 October 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP’s Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan’s version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “N word, n word, n word.” By 1968 you can’t say “n word” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N word, n word.”[6][7]
TaxPayer
May 7th, 2012
7:20 pm
“LBJ decimated the black family”
Only one? Pretty good record I’d say.
Yes but apparently it was THE black family.
Abraham Lincoln
May 7th, 2012
7:21 pm
The Rights of Labor
It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobidy labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it, induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to do it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:22 pm
It was called “the southern strategy,” started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue — on matters such as desegregation and busing — to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was “wrong.”
“By the ’70s and into the ’80s and ’90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out,” Mehlman says in his prepared text. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong.”
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
7:22 pm
“Nobody in 1860 considered Abraham Lincoln a conservative. The Republicans back then were radical liberals. The Democrats of Douglas were the conservatives.”
See…that is part of the problem: one’s definitions of terms. He would likely be considered “conservative” from a moral point of view. I don’t think for a minute he would not have supported or condoned occasional or habitual adultery (can you say RFK, LBJ and Clinton?), abortion of convenience, gay marriage and the like. So let’s not leave that out of the current debate, shall we?
kayaker 71
May 7th, 2012
7:23 pm
Suck, 7:17,
Yeah, you are probably right. However, Lincoln, no matter what his leanings politically, was not only the Republican candidate for president but the prime reason why blacks were freed. His amazing vision and persistence held this country together, all be it , rather tenuously. The country as you see it is a result.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:23 pm
Earlier this week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele told a group of 200 students at DePaul University that African-Americans “don’t have a reason” to vote for Republican candidates.
During his remarks he also acknowledged that for decades the GOP pursued “‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.”
Steele was asked to explain why an African-American should vote Republican at a university-sponsored discussion on the conservative movement. The RNC chairman’s response: “You really don’t have a reason to, to be honest — we haven’t done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True.”
Steele also discussed with students his own experience being the victim of racial discrimination — a subject that the he has openly addressed in the past. Steele told TV One’s Roland Martin in November that even some of his fellow Republicans are “scared” of him because of his race.
Steele acknowledged his party’s failure to reach out and connect with African-Americans and other marginalized communities. “We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans,” he explained.
Steele went on to make a candid statement about how the disconnect between Republicans and minorities is not new and has been a part of the party’s strategy for years. The Chicago-Sun Times reports on what the RNC Chairman had to say:
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:24 pm
Kayaker @ 7:23
On that we can agree 100%
F. Sinkwich
May 7th, 2012
7:25 pm
I just luv Jammie’s C&P’s.
Don’t you?
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:25 pm
Jay
Please look at my 7:20 to see why the program is holding it up.
Thanks
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
7:26 pm
“Earlier this week, RNC Chairman Michael Steele told a group of 200 students at DePaul University that African-Americans “don’t have a reason” to vote for Republican candidates.”
Thanks for that, TBS. I hadn’t read that.
Jm
May 7th, 2012
7:27 pm
2 words: Joe Biden
Jay
May 7th, 2012
7:27 pm
Two reasons: because it was inevitable and for political advantage.
Now you’re just making stuff up. If it was inevitable, why did LBJ stick his neck out and anger Southern Democrats? He could just sit back and let it happen, right? He sure had to fight tooth and nail with every trick in his book to achieve what you call the “inevitable.”
And what “political advantage”? As Johnson himself said, he was ruining the South for Democrats, and he knew it. Yet he went ahead and did it anyway. Sure enough, it led to George Wallace and Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
The truth is, prior to Kennedy/Johnson, black voters were generally Republican, the party of Lincoln. That changed with the election of ‘60, when Kennedy reached out to help MLK Jr., in the election of ‘64, when Barry Goldwater ran as a defender of segregation, and later when Johnson fought so hard for civil rights.
As to your earlier point about conservative clergy and civil rights, as a rule no, they did not participate in the movement and in fact opposed it. Southern Baptists in particular fought to preserve segregation. As late as 1976, Southern Baptists in Selma and other cities refused to associate with Baptist churches that did not segregate.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19761211&id=ZXE0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=jMgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1358,2362404
Recon 0311 2533
May 7th, 2012
7:29 pm
Our CIA has once again foiled an Al Qaeda bomb plot on board a U.S. airliner on the anniversary of bin Ladins death. The master A.Q. bomb maker has evidently engineered a bomb made from a substance called PETN that has a very small foot print and is non-detectable by metal detectors. It apparently detonates in the suicide bombers underwear but with an upgraded detonating device. The good news is that the C.I.A. was on it the bad news is that Al Qaeda has re-constituted not in Afghanistan but in Yemen. The war against radical Islamic terrorism is far from over.
Myths about Abraham Lincoln
May 7th, 2012
7:29 pm
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded. As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it”
Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not “interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states” (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union “with the rights of the several states unimpaired.” At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.
The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect “the duties and imposts,” and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that “the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed” in the states that had seceded.
Myth #2: Lincoln’s war saved the Union. The war may have saved the Union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as “free and independent.” They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:31 pm
Recon @ 7:29
Thanks for that post. Had news on, but wasn’t paying that much attention when they went over the plot
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:32 pm
Myths about Ab Lincoln
What was one the “states rights” that the south wanted say so over?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
May 7th, 2012
7:35 pm
More proof that this is not Ronald Reagan’s GOP:
And the “left” is not Kennedy’s party !
We have not gone nearly as far right as you have gone left.
If that still scares you ………… too bad.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:35 pm
Towncrier
In my opinion, when it comes to racial issues (good and bad), I think both Parties can certainly share some credit as well as blame.
Without making this a long post, I’m just glad that they were enough strong people regardless of race and politics to help push and push for advancement for all.
Jay
May 7th, 2012
7:36 pm
Lincoln didn’t fight the Civil War to free the slaves.
But the South sure as hell seceded to KEEP the slaves.
And whether you want to admit it or not, Lincoln did preserve the union.
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
7:41 pm
“Now you’re just making stuff up. ”
At least I provided evidence for my contentions. You? Only speculation. Why don’t you yet again rationalize away embarrassing evidence (that doesn’t fit with your worldview)?
It was inevitable because Eisenhower had pushed for Civil Rights (which the Democrats gutted), RFK had advocated a stronger Civil Rights bill than the watered down version Congress had passed and many people were now protesting across America. Why don’t you get that? The political advantage is just what you see now: 90 or more percent of blacks voting Democratic. Why don’t you see that? LBJ was between a rock and a hard place; he has to make a choice and he did – for the future benefit of the republican party. I guess you are one of these people who suppose Al Capone was a good man because he gave out turkeys for Thanksgiving. I hate to ask, but have you ever read even one of his (LBJ’s) biographies?
Towncrier
May 7th, 2012
7:42 pm
“Lincoln didn’t fight the Civil War to free the slaves.”
True meter says: half true. Not at first. But that changed during the course of the war.
Recon 0311 2533
May 7th, 2012
7:42 pm
Jay, States Rights…you’ve had your head buried in the far left mind control Kool-Aid for too long.
Brandt Hardin
May 7th, 2012
7:43 pm
Reagan has a legacy so distorted by the Conservative idolization of him that we may never have a clear picture of the real man behind the television set beyond the elaborate myth now concocted around him. Did he really rid the world of commie scum? Did destroy or save our economy? Check out my portrait of The Gipper and help me figure it out on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/02/happy-100th-gipper.html with some Cold War Hollywood!
Soothsayer
May 7th, 2012
7:43 pm
Well, just damn! I come on here all ready to skewer Saint Ronnie of the Trickle Down and some RepugNOwecan’ts and everbody’s talking about the damned Civil War!
NEWSFLASH! The Civil War’s done been over now for 151 years!
JamVet
May 7th, 2012
7:44 pm
However you spin it, he was a solid GOP candidate.
And notwithstanding your outrageously foolish claims otherwise, Lincoln was not a conservative.
OK, so far you are sitting on zero.
Can you and your so called conservative friends here give me some names of actual conservatives who fought hard for civil rights?
And extra bonus if they did so in the past fifty years. LOL.
They BOTH suck
May 7th, 2012
7:44 pm
“states rights”
What was one of those “rights” they wanted to control and have the Feds stay out of their way?
josef
May 7th, 2012
7:44 pm
GEORGIA the NEW MISSISSIPPI
And there’s something wrong with that? Get over your bigotries, prejudices and biases…Mississippi is just e pluribus unum, some things good, some things bad…like some other people you need to get your head out of the sand and see how much things have changed, some for the better, some for the worst, since you looked….
Boring again Jay....
May 7th, 2012
7:44 pm
Yawn………
Both parties suck… KILL THE DONKEYS AND THE ELEPHANTS!!!!