Posted on 10/30/2009 9:50:09 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
On MSNBC on October 27, Rachel Maddow interviewed Jane Hamsher, well-known Hollywood roustabout and left-wing blogger for FireDogLake.com. The subject was the progress of Obamacare in the Senate and Senator Joe Lieberman's warning that he might join a Republican filibuster of the Baucus bill if it contained the so-called public option.
During the discussion, however, Hamsher went off on a tangent about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and made the allusion that the famed anti-civil rights Dixiecrats joined Republicans to stand in the way of civil rights during the 1964 debates.
Maddow: Let me ask you about the statistic I attributed to you in my intro there - I know you have been doing some digging on this issue - of a Democrat joining a Republican filibuster. How, how unprecedented would a move like this be for Senator Lieberman?Naturally, host Maddow did not correct Hamsher's misleading claim that the GOP stood in the way of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In reality, Republicans were great supporters of the legislation. Leave it to MSNBC to continue the left's favorite myth that Republicans are against civil rights for blacks...Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters …
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
Yeah.. All 5 people that watch heard her..
Then how do they explain the fact that more republicans voted FOR it than democrats? Or, are fact unimportant here?
I threw that in the face of a local union thug. He went mental. Then I threw George Wallace at him.
Next time, you can toss in “Bull” Connor and Lester Maddox, too.
Originally, most of the Democrats were against it. If it weren’t for Emmanuel Celler crossing the isle and helping the Republicans get it out of the judiciary committee, few dems would have supported it. It was Howard Smith (D) who tried to block it.
In the House, Republicans supported it to a far greater margin than Democrats.
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Similar numbers in the Senate
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
Positively incredible, isn't it?
The final bill had 80% of House Republicans vote in favor, with 82% of Senate Republicans in favor.
The Democrats were the losers, with 69% of House Democrats in favor and 63% of Senate Democrats in favor.
The Democrats are the ones who were against this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals
Typical Leftist revisionism. They have to withhold the truth that it was Republicans who championed desegregation and civil rights.
The GOP in the Senate BROKE the Democratic filibuster for the Civil Rights Act. Goldwater opposed it on Constitutional grounds. The Dems opposed it on racist grounds. Case closed.
“I threw that in the face of a local union thug. He went mental. Then I threw George Wallace at him.”
A left, a right, a K.O. in the 1st round!!
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Somebody has their history back ackwards! it was the democrats that majorly voted against the civil rights act and the republicans that voted for it. We were organized as the anti slavery party afterall.
Why let pesky little facts, such as the Republicans are the reason why the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, get in the way of their personal agenda?
Let’s not forget that the Southern politicians that supported slavery were Democrats. Plus, the first blacks elected to the House and the Senate were elected in 1869 and all were Republicans. It wasn’t until 1939 that the Democrats elected a black to the House and it wasn’t until 1993 (127 years later than the Republicans) that they managed to get a black (Carol Moseley Brown) into the Senate. And yet, Republicans are the racists.
I think the problem with the term “Civil Rights†is it probably means two different things to blacks. To older blacks it was all about job and social discrimination and voting. To younger blacks it is probably more associated with government welfare programs. Not that it should be looked at that way, but put perhaps an explanation.
They don’t explain it because they don’t know it, they are ignoramouses with an agenda, they are not out there to give the truth.
While you’re throwing, throw Al Gore Sr. at them too.
Yes. That's the way it was.
A lot of conservatives were against sending all power to Washington's GS employees. Many conservatives backed the Tenth Amendment. That automatically made you a racist.
Backing law and order (Support your local police) in response to the burning and looting of cities also automatically made you a racist and was derided as law'n order, code words for the N-word.
So when liberals spout off that "Republicans [stood] in the way of civil rights during the 1964 debates" they embrace the B.S. and liberal lies of the era. Surprise.
He certainly fits into the general category, but he’s not “infamous” like the others.
1934.
I was one Congress off. Yes, the first black Dem was elected in 1934. He served from 1935–1943.
You were off two, actually. A Congress is for two years, not four. Those Black Dems that won IL-1 after defeating Oscar De Priest were mostly ex-Republicans. Including the one that served clear up into the early ‘70s. Chicago Blacks were forced into the Democrat machine as the GOP collapsed in order to have any power.
Well, thank heaven you were around to correct my egrigious error. I’m sure FR would have collapsed had you not corrected me.
Hey, correcting you Slick Willardbots on the facts is a way of life for me. ;-)
...since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.
Source: http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
I got called a n----rlover!
The democrats only adopted civil rights because they realized the issue was exploitable, not from any great love of human liberty.
The term "civil rights" should never have entered our vocabulary. It suggests that governments create and dispense rights, as opposed to the founders belief in inalienable, God given rights.
What government gives you, government can take away from you, and probably will!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.