Posted on 07/30/2014 1:51:39 PM PDT by TexasCajun
You know youve hit a sore spot when the left starts screeching.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddows producer, Steve Benen, just took a whack at the American Civil Rights Unions new booklet, The Truth About Jim Crow, (TTAJC) which National Review writer John Fund wrote about in a recent column.
Benen cites a critique from the Atlanta Journal Constitution blogger Jay Bookman: Jay Bookman took a closer look at the pamphlet Funds piece was promoting, highlighting some of its more glaring errors of fact and judgment.
And what errors of fact would those be, Steve? Bookman did not point out a single factual error. Instead, regarding TTAJCs three main points, that Jim Crow was dehumanizing, deadly and Democratic, he painfully admitted the papers accuracy: that is true as far as it goes. Apparently, Benen believes if you cant find a factual error yourself, its okay to claim falsely that somebody else did.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Ken Blackwell -- Former Ohio Secretary of State
To quote LBJ: "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
Goldwater voted for it, then against the more comprehensive 1964 CRA because of its intrusiveness.
Goldwater voted agains the 1964 act not because he supported Jim Crow but because it stretched the Commerce Clause so far that it could become a precedent for Congress to legislate on any subject. His concern turned out to be correct. The Supreme Court had a chance to restore some restraint with the Obamacare decision, but Roberts stabbed us in the back with a decision that stretches the taxation power to allow Congress to legislate about any subject.
You know youve hit THE TRUTH when the left starts screeching.
The Democrats then took over in every Southern state, creating the Solid South and enacting the Jim Crow laws.
By 1964 the charge for civil rights was lead by Democrats and the opposition was lead by Democrats. The Republican Senate Leader, Everett Dirksen negotiated some tweaks with the floor manager, Hubert Humphrey, and brought his caucus over to supporting the bill. A higher percentage of the Republican caucuses in the Senate and House supported the bill than the Democrat caucuses.
Everyone knew that after FDR put together the New Deal coalition that held Congress from 1932 that they only way to end segregation would be if and when the Democrats decided to do it.
And it's a myth that the segregationists then came over to the Republican Party. The party that more strongly supported civil rights than the Democrats? Seriously? That makes no sense.
Almost no Democrat politicians switched parties after the vote. Being politicians, they just switched sides and started courting the black vote.
Liberals can't face up to the real reason Democrats switched to the Republicans. It's because the McGovernite, isolationist and appeasement wing of the party took over in 1968-1972. The cold warriors and fiscally responsible people, which most Southerners are, were pushed out by the far left.
The only one who did change parties was former dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. BUT He publicly denounced the dixiecrat platform and became a champion of civil rights unlike al gore sr, richard russel, william fulbright, robert byrd, etc, etc.
Strom Thurmond was the first southern politician to have african americans on his staff, while democrats remained lily white.
Exactly. Thurmond knew the deal. He would have to give up his support for segregation if he wanted to be accepted in the Republican party.
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.