But he still had no vote in that body. Rush Limbaugh has a "voice", too, but he also has no vote in that body. My point was explicitly addressing his service while in the Senate.
"His opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Voting Rights Act, any and all attempts at integration, and the civil rights movement as a whole were clearly stated by him."
And what was the reasoning ? Barry Goldwater opposed the '64 CRA, and yet he had been clearly pro-civil rights for his political career and beforehand, yet he was blasted as a "tool of Southern racists" by MLK. Many Conservatives opposed those actions because they were heavy-handed government overreach that ran counter to the Constitution. Once the Democrats saw that they were losing White voters, they cynically moved to pander to the Black community by breeding dependence and LBJ himself stated that he'd have them voting for "us" (Dems) for the next 100 years. I'd dare say Helms's opposition to federal government intervention wasn't exactly unfounded in his concerns. Since the feds and government took a "special interest", the damage has been without equal. The KKK in its wildest dreams couldn't have done to the Black community what liberal government intervention has done in the past half century.
I'll note you forgot to mention the 1984 Helms-Hunt race, where he explicitly opposed affirmative action. Many derided it as racist. The point is, if you're going to support a cause or government program, you're going to have to be prepared to defend it. That affirmative action as a policy SOUNDS good in attempting to redress wrongs, you end up creating more wrongs and injustice in doing so, all because you happen to have a certain skin color. I remember when I was in school in the '80s and learned precisely what a "quota system" was. Meaning, when I applied to a school, there weren't enough slots that had been filled by Whites (so I got in solely because of my skin color) while all the slots for non-Whites were filled. A Black or Asian student with higher grades than mine would've been denied. It's this kind of system that the government has championed that Helms viscerally opposed.
"Once in he was an unabashed supporter of white ruled South Africa."
And again, what was the reasoning ? Could it be because once colonial regimes deferred to native control, disaster followed ? The truth remains that most of Africa cannot manage their own affairs without descending into the worst kinds of tyranny. Helms knew that if South Africa were transferred to Mandela at once, it would've immediately become a Soviet satellite. Would that have been a better solution ? Don't get me wrong, I abhor tyranny of either sort, but we don't end up having a reasonable middle ground where there's a fair shake for all (be it Africa, or even parts of America).
"We can go on all day long about the flaws of Martin Luther King and whether or not he deserves a holiday. But the thrust of the article that started this thread was what the GOP can do to help convince black voters that the GOP is more attuned to their real interests. And Helms' steadfast opposition to a man who even conservative blacks respect is not helpful."
If the canonization of a moral reprobate and hypocrite whose leftist agenda was becoming more and more strident and self-evident is the premier cause of the Black community today (and opposing a deceased Senator who stood against naming a national holiday for him 30 years ago), the denial is even worse than I imagined. The irony to me isn't lost that that aforementioned school I cited above that explicitly employed racial quotas was named for MLK.
"Again, the question is what can the GOP do for blacks?"
The GOP isn't doing much for anyone these days, not with the leadership and establishment with its foot on the neck of Conservatives. A party shouldn't explicitly be for one racial group or another, it should be about lifting up as many people as possible to prosperity. Democrats breed dependence and hate in the Black community, Republicans ignore the Black community (for the most part). They both play their little roles the media sets out for them and heaven forbid someone not fitting the role appears on the scene and goes off script. Blacks, sadly, have largely been content to play the role set out for them for the past half-century (or longer). They remain the proverbial puppets on a string. All the while, Hispanics have now supplanted them and pushed them into 3rd place in the pecking order (and Dems are already moving to make Hispanics their premier pandered-to group and to try to do to them what they did to Blacks).
It's a great little racket the Dems have going, that's for sure. Yes, indeed, there is a whole sociological and pathology to this situation. A massive plantation without walls, yet it works so absolutely well. Until Blacks rise up in large numbers and realize they've been had, it will never change. A few voices (such as Zo Rachel) do speak up, but they're marginalized by the plantation overseers and get the rhetorical whip (denounced as either self-loathing or acting White, whichever works). The sad part is, as long as the GOP remains as it is, it wouldn't know what to do with Black voters if they moved back over to their former party.
"Praising a man who was a stalwart segregationist and opposed to equal rights for a significant portion of the population is not going to do it. There are a lot of other politicians whose guide was the Constitution and who don't come with the baggage that Jesse Helms has."
But you fail to comprehend why Ted Cruz praises this giant of a man and Senator. He refused to be swayed by the media and the cocktail circuit cretins. He stayed true to himself and the Constitution. He spoke truth to power. He wasn't politically correct. He didn't suffer fools. He was a true maverick (not the maverick defined by the media as a Republican who promotes a leftist agenda, i.e. McCain). He was called names ("racist") because he was ultimately proven right. The media and the left couldn't drive him out or to an early death (as they did with Joe McCarthy, another giant), and he retired on his own terms. Helms understood this was a Republic if we could keep it. These are the reasons Cruz admires him. Until we as Americans emulate these qualities (and demand our elected officials to do so) we will continue to circle the drain.
I hate to say it but South Africa was much better off under apartheid, Black and White people alike.
ANC rule has been am unmitigated disaster. Democracy is meaningless when only swine are elected. That might be extremely politically incorrect but it’s fact. I’d rather have no vote than live in a crime and AIDS ravaged craphole where my vote doesn’t matter anyway because it’s a 1 party dominant state.
As for Cruz praising Helms, who cares? You’re sweating small potatoes Doodledawg. Our 5% share of the Black vote isn’t going down and it’s not gonna go up by distancing ourselves from a great Senator that 80% of people outside of NC have never heard of or by kissing MLK’s a$$.
If it’s the media you’re worried about it’s a given that they call us racist no matter what whist excusing anyone who cozies up to an ACTUAL racist like the late not so great KKK Wizard Bob Byrd who used the N-word on TV as late as 2001.
The problem with Black voters is far too big to worry about minor BS. Any Black voter who wouldn’t listen to Cruz after Jon Stewart tells him that Cruz praised some dead guy who was for segregation decades ago, wasn’t gonna to listen to Cruz anyway, no matter what, because that voter is a hopeless idiot.