Democratic Party's record on Race >>MOD EDIT<<

Lie by omission?

Seriously? You claim that the NAACP statement is a lie by omission because they don't tell both sides?

I look forward to pointing out each time I see a "lie by omission" in your posts.

Meanwhile, the NAACP, the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" said that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a significant piece of legislature for African Americans.

You disagree.

That explains almost everything.

 

You made the claim that Women's Rights were not a Civil Rights issue.

I also remind you

" I am not denying that. I will point out the lie by omission. The NAACP neglects to mention "

You neglected to mention that the Civil Rights Act that Reagan vetoed was restoring Civil Rights for not only women, but also for minorities. That is what you would call a 'lie by omission"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ion-act-discrimination-act-rehabilitation-act

Although the orginal Grove City case dealt with a sex discrimination complaint filed under the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, because of language similarities it also applied to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination based on race or national origin.

It also applied to Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against disabled persons, and to the Age

Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits discrimination based on age.

So to recap:

Reagan vetoed a Civil Rights Act that provided protections for women, the elderly, the handicapped and minorities.

Lyndon Johnson signed Civil Rights Acts- Reagan vetoed it- showing the reversal of roles, as Democrats assumed the mantle of Civil Rights and Republicans began to oppose them.

 

Their record is easily summed up: From race hating to race baiting.

 

Well it is little known because it is a fact that Lyndon Johnson who pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. While I do believe that Dirksen was instrumental in overcoming some of the roadblocks, and sounds like a wonderful man, Democrats were ultimately responsible for the intruduction and passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Like I said:
Kennedy proposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Democrats pushed the legislation through Congress.
Johnson signed the bill into law.

Sounds like a Republican of old. Good thing he had Democrats to push that legislation through Congress and Democratic Presidents to sign those bills into law.

Lets not forget racist Republican Barry Goldwater who voted against the bill- AND was the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.

And Strom Thurmond- who switched from Democratic to Republican Party in 1964, after voting against the Act.

So, it is true to say that Democrats were both responsible for the 1964 Civil Rights Act enactment, but were also the main opposition.

 

Johnson just pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and signed it into law.

The law that the Republican Presidential candidate Goldwater voted against.

And with that there was a dramatic increase of African Americans voting Democrat instead of Republican.

 

Well that is what you would call a lie by omission. Because you neglected to point out the dramatic loss of African American voters from Bush to Obama.

Bush got 11% of the African American vote in 2004, but McCain only got 4% (your numbers). Romney's 6% is still about half that of Bush's.

And according to Gallup only 2% of African Americans identify themselves as Republicans in 2013.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx\\

Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White

Why is the Democratic Party racially diverse?

Because African Americans, Asians and Latino Americans believe that the Democratic Party represents their interests, and the Republican Party doesn't.

 

A fascinating article on attempts like the OP's to shift public perception of the Democratic and Republican Parties history on race

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html

The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson&#8217;s cover story in National Review is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism&#8217;s revisionist dogma.

The mainstream, and correct, history of the politics of civil rights is as follows. Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party.

Williamson crafts a tale in which the Republican Party is and always has been the greatest friend the civil rights cause ever had. The Republican takeover of the white South had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, the revisionist case proclaims, except insofar as white Southerners supported Republicans because they were more pro-civil rights.

One factoid undergirding this bizarre interpretation is that the partisan realignment obviously took a long time to complete &#8212; Southerners still frequently voted Democratic into the seventies and eighties. This proves, according to Williamson, that a backlash against civil rights could not have driven southern whites out of the Democratic Party. &#8220;They say things move slower in the South &#8212; but not that slow,&#8221; he insists
.
His story completely ignores the explicit revolt by conservative Southerners against the northern liberal civil rights wing, beginning with Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman&#8217;s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.

Thurmond&#8217;s candidacy is instructive. Democratic voting was deeply acculturated among southern whites as a result of the Civil War. When southern whites began to shake loose of it, they began at the presidential level, in protest against the civil rights leanings of the national wing. It took decades for the transformation to filter down, first to Congressional-level representation (Thurmond, who Williamson mentions only in his capacity as a loyal Democrat, finally switched to the GOP in 1964), and ultimately to local-level government. The most fervently white supremacist portions of the South were also the slowest to shed their Confederate-rooted one-party traditions. None of this slowness actually proves Williamson&#8217;s contention that the decline of the Democratic Party in the South was unrelated to race.

Williamson concedes, with inadvertently hilarious understatement, that the party &#8220;went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress&#8221; &#8212; that would be the century that passed between Reconstruction and President Eisenhower&#8217;s minimalist response to massive resistance in 1957. But after this wee dry spell, the party resumed and maintained its natural place as civil rights champion. To the extent that Republicans replaced Democrats in the South, Williamson sees their support for civil rights as the cause. (&#8220;Republicans did begin to win some southern House seats, and in many cases segregationist Democrats were thrown out by southern voters in favor of civil-rights Republicans.&#8221 As his one data point, Williamson cites the victory of George Bush in Texas over a Democrat who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He correctly cites Bush&#8217;s previous record of moderation on civil rights but neglects to mention that Bush also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Wait- George Bush was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

But he was a Republican? Why has there been no mention so far in this thread that the future President of the United States, George Bush Sr. was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

That almost seems a lie by omission.

And so did Ronald Reagan. Thats right- future Republican President Ronald Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill into law- but Bush and Reagan were opposed to it.

That is, as Paul Harvey used to say "The Rest of the Story"

 

Haven't you heard? Blacks, hispanics, and Asians are slaves to white liberals. White liberals own a democrat plantation, and we keep them as slaves providing them with welfare, and "Obama phones", and other "goodies". They are so manipulated by us white liberals, and they don't even know it.

^^ this is what conservatives are always telling me

 

I never said I disagree.

I said that Women's rights are not a racial issue. From what I read, the law was in regard to sex and age. Claiming that Reagan advocated discrimination based on sex, age, handicapped and minorities based on that is just plain silly. I know that the democrats were also pushing for quotas in hiring back then which is a remedy that should be applied by the courts when necessary, not congress.

Like others on this forum, Jonathan Chait seems a bit confused as to which party advocated Civil Rights Legislation for 100 years prior to the Civil Rights Act. He also seems to think that Civil Rights is a liberal ideology in spite of the fact that it was liberals who controlled the democrat party for the 100 years prior to the Civil Rights Act. He as well confuses racism or white supremacy with political ideology. If it is more prevalent in any ideology it is more prevalent in liberalism even to this day. Identity politics has become a staple of the progressive diet. Class and race warfare are the preferred tools and strategies of the democrat party. Perhaps liberals should judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The rest of his article is suspect because I could not find any other source for his assertions other than his article.

 

It is true, the democrats are more racially diverse. The republicans are becoming more racially diverse and you should be celebrating that fact. Just wait until the mass defections come from the democrats to the republicans due to Obamacare and the other lies that come to light. They'll be multi-racial defections too.

 

You specifically said that discrimination against women was not a civil rights issue- let me remind you:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews
Well this was not a civil rights issue as it relates to racism, but rather sexism and ageism.

And "Claiming that Reagan advocated discrimination based on sex" is just a lie- since I never made that claim

You seem to have difficulty with this

Here is what I said

Reagan vetoed a Civil Rights Act that provided protections for women, the elderly, the handicapped and minorities. - and that is accurate

Lyndon Johnson signed Civil Rights Acts- Reagan vetoed it- showing the reversal of roles, as Democrats assumed the mantle of Civil Rights and Republicans began to oppose them.- and that is accurate also

I will point out again that Reagan was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- as was George Bush.

 

Well that is what you would call a lie by omission. Because you neglected to point out the dramatic loss of African American voters from Bush to Obama.

Bush got 11% of the African American vote in 2004, but McCain only got 4% (your numbers). Romney's 6% is still about half that of Bush's.

And according to Gallup only 2% of African Americans identify themselves as Republicans in 2013.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/de...y-white.aspx

Actually, I think that is not a lie by omission- I think it is just a lie. The Republican Party continues to be a essentially a white person's club.

February 8, 2013

Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White

Democrats and independents grow more diverse since 2008
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 89% of Republican self-identifiers nationwide in 2012, while accounting for 70% of independents and 60% of Democrats. Over one-fifth of Democrats (22%) were black, while 16% of independents were Hispanic.

The racial and ethnic composition of the Republican Party today is similar to what it was in 2008, the year when Gallup began its daily tracking. There have been essentially no changes in the percentage of GOP identifiers who are white, black, and Hispanic.

Independents have become more Hispanic since 2008 (and slightly more black), while Democrats have become more black and more Hispanic. Phrased differently, the independent and Democratic segments of the U.S. population are now less white than they were in 2008, reflecting the uptick in the U.S. nonwhite population over these five years.

 

Any other questions?

 

That is one of the democrat memes about Goldwater but Goldwater was far from being a racist. Goldwater supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

Well, Byrd and Gore stayed Democrats so touche.

Of course they would have introduced the bill, they were in the majority of both the House and Senate. It is interesting that they get the credit for years of Republican work on civil rights.

 

Since Democrats proposed the bill, since the majority of the votes for passage were Democratic and since a Democratic President signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it just makes since.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for that special insight. Any of the opponents of the Democratic Party posting here care to comment- Hoosier? Patriot?

 

well, here's what MLK had to say about Goldwater.........

but I guess MLK was just playing the race card, eh?

 

So on the record- how did Presidents from 1964 to present think about the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Lyndon Johnson (D)- signed the bill into law
Richard Nixon (R)- unable to find an opinion- Nixon was the VP for Goldwater who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ford (R)- voted for the CRA
Carter (D)- was for the 1964 CRA
Reagan (R) - was against the 1964 CRA
Bush Sr (R) - was against the 1964 CRA
Clinton (D)- can't find an opinion
Bush Jr. (R) - can't find an opinion

- - - Updated - - -

I am sure that you think that most people are. Everyone outside the compound.

 

I know what I said. This thread is about racism of the democratic party, if you want to talk about sexism in the democratic party, start your own thread. Oh and by the way, I am Hispanic and Anglo, and many of them on both sides are republicans especially because they are Catholic and don't follow the anti-religion, anti-family, pro-socialism, pro-abortion AND pro-illegal immigration policies of the dumbocrat party. They immigrated legally and voted for Props 222, 187 and 8 here in California all of which passed here in liberal California and were overturned by the courts.

Go ahead and point it out, do you have a link?

 

Nixon was not the VP for Goldwater. He was the VP for Eisenhower.

 

It is sad to see anti-Semitism coming from the left or the right. I think the Democrats are led by communists and socialists who are for the most part atheists. There are quite a few liberal Jews in the democrat party which is very anti-Israel but go figure? I don't know why people think dumb things like this given the anti-Israel sentiments in the democrat party. Just another example of how racism is not dependent upon ones political views.

 

I think the loss in support had something to do with the first black presidential nominee.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. What democrats left the party to join the GOP? So 30 states left the democrats to become racist Southern states?

What about this map?



I guess 49 states are racist republican states?

 

And are the most part Jewish people.

Do you know what AIPAC is?

 

You are blocked.

 

Of course the majority of votes were democratic, they held the majority of seats. A majority of republicans also voted for it and in a larger percentage.

 

Ha. Censor opposing viewpoints. That brings truth.

Your avatar is disgusting.