Only Two Days until September!
Please Contribute Today!
Posted on 08/30/2013 9:21:42 AM PDT by shove_it
As Newsbusters reported, the Los Angeles Times is claiming that Democrats led the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Talk show host Larry Elder sets the record straight:
`snip~
According to the article linked by Elder above,
Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act.
Wikipedia, which has been known on occasion to get its facts right, has the same numbers.
Even the ultra-liberal blog Raw Story acknowledges the vote totals:
When we look at the party vote in both houses of Congress, it fits the historical pattern. Republicans are more in favor of the bill:
80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.
Naturally, the raw votes don’t mean what you think they mean. “Once you control for region,” Raw Story asserts, “it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”
Indeed. And if you control for idiocy, it turns out that the L.A. Times is actually biased toward Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at twitchy.com ...
No, they were the Demokkkrats. And the Republicans have let them get away with the narrative. The Demokkkrats now run the government plantation. And their followers are too lazy to learn any different.
FROM ANN COULTER:
White Liberals Tell Black Lies About Civil Rights
EXCERPT:
99 members of Congress signed the “Southern Manifesto” denouncing the court’s ruling in Brown vs Board of Education. Two were Republicans. Ninety-seven were Democrats.
As president, Eisenhower pushed through the 1957 Civil Rights Act and the 1960 Civil Rights Act. He established the Civil Rights Commission. It was Eisenhower, not Truman, who fully desegregated the military.
Meanwhile, the Brown decision was being openly defied by the Democratic governor of Arkansas (and Bill Clinton pal), Orval Faubus, who refused to admit black students to Little Rock Central High School.
Liberals act as if Eisenhower’s sending federal troops to Little Rock was like Nixon going to China. No, it was like Nixon going to California.
Only someone who knows no history could proclaim, as Tanenhaus did, that the 1957 act “wasn’t great, it wasn’t what LBJ gave us, but it was something.”
If Eisenhower’s 1957 civil rights bill was weak, it was because of one man: Lyndon B. Johnson. As Robert Caro explains in his book, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson,” it was LBJ who stripped the bill of its enforcement provisions. Even after that, the bill was still opposed by 18 senators — all of them Democrats.
To the easily astounded Chris Matthews, Tanenhaus breathlessly remarked, “Not one Republican voted against that bill!” — as if the 1957 Civil Right Act was a Democratic idea and they were delighted to get any Republican support at all.
Imagine a modern German historian saying: “Remember — it wasn’t just Germans who opposed the Holocaust. The English and Americans did too!” Such a historian would be beaten bloody, quite rightly so.
The 1957 bill was sent to Congress by Eisenhower, passed with the intervention of Vice President Richard Nixon, and opposed exclusively by Democrats. Not “Southern Democrats,” not “conservative Democrats,” but Democrats, such as Wayne Morse of Oregon, Warren Magnuson of Washington, James Murray of Montana, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Joseph O’Mahoney of Wyoming.
With absolutely no evidence (because there is none), Tanenhaus then asserted that Republicans decided “they were not going to be pro-civil rights. ... They were going to side with the Southern oppressors.” Cretin Matthews seconded this gibberish by saying Nixon was “playing the Southern Strategy electorally with Strom Thurmond and those boys.”
Who exactly does Matthews imagine he means by “Strom Thurmond and those boys”? Every single segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat. Only one of them ever became a Republican: Strom Thurmond.
The rest remained not only Democrats, but quite liberal Democrats. These included such liberal luminaries as Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Allen Ellender, Albert Gore Sr., J. William Fulbright, Walter F. George, Russell Long and Richard Russell.
Fulbright was Bill Clinton’s mentor. Gore was “Al Jazeera” Gore’s father. Sam Ervin headed Nixon’s impeachment committee. The segregationists who were in the Senate in the ‘50s were rabid Joe McCarthy opponents. In the ‘60s, they opposed the Vietnam War and supported LBJ’s Great Society programs. In the ‘90s, they got 100 percent ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
These “Southern oppressors” were liberal Democrats when they were racists and remained liberal Democrats after they finally stopped being racists (in public). If Republicans had a racist “Southern strategy,” it didn’t work on the racists.
Nor did Nixon — or Reagan — ever win over segregationist voters. Republicans only began sweeping the South after the segregationists died.
Even as late as 1980, when Reagan won a 44-state landslide, the old segregationists were still voting Democrat. Although Reagan handily won Southern states that had been voting Republican since the ‘20s, he barely won — or lost — the Goldwater states.
According to numerous polls, Reagan swept Southern college students, while losing college students in the Northeast. Meanwhile, The Washington Post called the elderly “a bedrock of Carter’s southern base.”
As LBJ explained to fellow Democrats after doing a 180-flip on civil rights as president and pushing the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which resembled the 1957 Civil Rights Act he had gutted as a senator): “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years.” That’s according to a steward on Air Force One, who overhead him say it.
It’s one thing to rewrite history to say the Holocaust was when the Swedes killed the Jews. But it’s another to say that the Holocaust was when Jews killed the Germans.
That’s how liberals rewrite the history of civil rights in America.
This is the origin of the word "neo-conservative".
According to the liberals, those bad democrats that voted to stop civil rights were actually future Republicans.
There may be some truth in that. As the democrat party evolved into Marxism, many of the old democrats did move to the republican party.
Should we be calling their new members "neo-Marxists"?
L.A. Times is for sale any wonder.
That’s been common knowledge ‘round these parts for decades.
The only one of them who did was Thurmond. This is why the left smears him. Guilt by association.
You can remove the democrat from the PARTY but it’s damn hard to remove the democrat from the DEMOCRAT..
Many republicans are/still democrats.. they are called RINOs..
Harry Byrd was an independent.
a paper that used to cost a dime is now not even worth a dime.
NYT LAT .. something about them folks,, lie like there’s no tomorrow and reinvent the past..
sad.
Liberals have the right to lie...very much like Islamism, it is perfectly righteous to lie if it will advance the agenda, if anyone attempts to defy the lies, destroy them.
RE: Harry Byrd was an independent.
Not according to Wikipedia:
Born Harry Flood Byrd
June 10, 1887
Martinsburg, West Virginia, U.S.
Died October 20, 1966 (aged 79)
Berryville, Virginia, U.S.
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Anne Douglas Beverley
Children Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
Religion Episcopalian
Good news comrades, Dear Leader has increased the chocolate ration from 25 to 18 grams.
Truth is lies
Freedom is slavery
The GOPe is stalwart and brave. John Boner’s strength is the strength of ten because his heart is pure.
My bad...I was referring to his son, Harry Jr.. They were both Senators from VA. But both were pretty darn conservative.
Harry Byrd Jr. WAS a Democrat prior to switching to Independent in 1970 according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_F._Byrd,_Jr.
That’s true, but Coulter’s point was that they were all Democrats and remained democrats. My point is that Byrd did not remain a democrat but my point is moot since Coulter and I were referring to different Byrds...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_F._Byrd,_Jr.
The original reference in the post was to the elder Harry Byrd, who was a life-long Democrat. It was the son who became an Independent.
“And the Republicans have let them get away with the narrative.”
Naturally, this is what Republicans do. Although in the minority, numerically, in the Congress, Republicans supported the bills in question by larger percentages than did the Democrats, and without the leadership of Sen. Dirksen the president, Good Ol’ Boy Lyndon Johnson would not own the reputation of a Great Civil Rights Leader.
Senator Fulbright did write a letter to Herbert Thomas with a supporting statement for his integration of the UofA law school. Also, he did sign the Southern Manifesto later on.
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.