Posted on 08/24/2024 6:05:55 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
RFK Jr. recently lamented:
The Democratic party I grew up with, the party of Robert and John Kennedy, was fighting to make sure that Americans, every American, could vote for the candidates that they chose to vote for. And this Democratic party is doing everything in its power to make sure Americans are disenfranchised.
Democrats abhor democracy and project their sins onto opponents. Is this new? Certainly not during the party’s founding or at any point in between.
The Democratic party began in 1828 as a southern phenomenon to elect Andrew Jackson, famous for exploits in Indian wars. Jacksonian “democracy” excluded certain races. Jackson’s Removal Act of 1830 focused on clearing the South of 50,000 remaining Indians to prepare for slave plantations. The Trail of Tears, which herded 15,000 Cherokee west and killed 3-4,000, was not a voter registration drive. Native Americans finally attained citizenship under Coolidge in 1924.
Democrats started the Civil War to prevent all Americans from enjoying citizenship. 800,000 dead later they surrendered. In subsequent generations Democrats sought to undo their loss through Jim Crow and similar segregationist de jure and de facto lawfare techniques that continued past WWII. Republican Abraham Lincoln freed Democrats’ slaves. School desegregation finally began under Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. He deported over a million illegal immigrants, rectifying another Democrat mess. Republican Richard M. Nixon concluded Democrats’ Vietnam fiasco.
Biden represented the final congressional remnant of Jim Crow, the last of his political breed. Representing Delaware, a slave state, in Congress, he was mentored by figures such as Ku Klux Klan exalted cyclops Robert Byrd. Byrd, eulogized by Biden as someone who “elevated the Senate,” was Senate President Pro Tempore, third in line of presidential succession. Bill Clinton’s mentor was segregationist Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. Al Gore Jr.'s father joined Byrd,...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
This may be the year when black voters FINALLY leave the Democrat plantation.
Democrat Party
I suppose there was a sweet spot for the Democrat party. Jimmy Carter was far from perfect. But he was a decent person. And so was his vice president, Walter Mondale. Harry Truman was okay, too. But that’s about it.
The problem is that many Democrat voters (and especially the older ones) live in a dream world. In their dream world, the Democrat party is still the party of JFK: Patriotic, and for the average working person.
They just can’t see that today’s Democrat party is the party of AOC and Bernie Sanders: Socialist, and most definitely not for the average working person.
I wonder if others are having trouble with it - a candidate that no one voted for and refuses pressers. Pretty weird.
How was Carter “decent”?
I would not classify giving away the Panama Canal or calling Ruhollah Khomeini a “holy man” the acts of someone “decent”. More like the acts of someone who is malicious.
Jimmy Carter was an idiot. Also, it was the '70s. So he was sort of a "hippie".
The Democrats today are different. You would have recognized them in the former Soviet Union.
Jimmy Carter wasn't like that.
> How was Carter “decent”? <
Jimmy Carter was an idiot. He betrayed the Shah of Iran, and that lead to much of the trouble in that region today.
But I don’t see him as being evil, as say Hillary and Obama are. I just don’t. I see him as a decent guy (and an Annapolis grad) who was in way over his head. He was a child in a man’s world.
Many Democrats cannot see any good in Republicans. None at all. We must stay alert. Be we probably shouldn’t be making such sweeping generalizations.
“The Democratic party began in 1828 as a southern phenomenon to elect Andrew Jackson, famous for exploits in Indian wars”
In fact Jackson’s fame came from being the commanding General of American forces that defeated the British at the epic Battle of New Orleans. This was a pretty big deal at the time.
Some of us know that battle as the final act of “The War of 1812”.
Apparently Townhall scholar Douglas Schwartz missed that little episode in his exhaustive study of Andrew Jackson.
And that’s not the lone bit of nonsense from Schwartz. This essay is full of half baked “historical” buffoonery that’s more about current politics than anything resembling 19th century history.
There’s no evidence that Jackson ever identified as or ran for office as a Democrat. His VP Martin Van Buren is the more likely candidate for the title of “first Democratic party President” when he won the office in 1836.
Those curious about the actual Jackson instead of Townhall’s cartoon would probably enjoy Bradley Birzer’s essay here:
“When Andrew Jackson died in 1845, he had still not aligned himself officially with the Democratic party, still believing himself a natural and cultivated republican. Was he, then, an Old Republican?”
> In fact Jackson’s fame came from being the commanding General of American forces that defeated the British at the epic Battle of New Orleans. <
Everything I know about that battle comes from the Johnny Horton song. And I suppose that’s enough.
https://youtu.be/kEh6mmUKvYA?si=0mCI5Sm7zge-katW
Jackson is Trump’s Political hero.
True Dims will vote for the color of her skin to prove they are not racist.
“Jackson is Trump’s Political hero.”
Which makes sense. Jackson was an outsider, challenging the elites who had controlled national politics for years.
Jackson and his supporters were derided as uncultured rubes from the backwoods who had no business interfering with the way things were being run by their betters, by the people who deserved to run the country.
Jackson’s desire to shut down the 2nd Bank of the United States would cut off the elite’s meal ticket much the same way that Trump’s plan to go after the status quo today. The hatred of Insiders for both men is very similar.
“Everything I know about that battle comes from the Johnny Horton song. And I suppose that’s enough.”
Exactly. I was thinking about that song when I was writing the post.
I had some ancestors at the Battle of New Orleans. On my mom’s side there was a probable pirate who manned cannon that Jean LaFitte brought to the fight.
I’m not sure how much LaFitte’s Baratarians were motivated by patriotism. They just knew that the British were highly capable of putting an to the pirate trade if they won, whereas New Orleans piracy would go merrily on if the comparatively weak United States was the victor.
On my dad’s side I had some ancestors in Jackson’s army. One I think was a Tennessee Elector when Jackson won the Presidency.
I hope so.
And they made an Assanination attempt on him. JFK eas also from outside the Democratic Party Establishment.
So his actions are evil even to the point of being deadly, but he isn’t?
As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
> So his actions are evil even to the point of being deadly, but he isn’t? <
That’s a tough question. I wouldn’t call Carter’s actions evil because I don’t think there was evil intent behind them. Instead, I would call his actions childish, counterproductive, and naive.
On the other hand, Obama was deliberately doing evil things. As was Hillary.
So I hesitate to put Carter in the same category as Obama and Hillary. But as the old saying goes, your mileage may vary (and I respect that).
The modern day “Superdelegate” system was supposed to moderate the dim party, but it has had much worse adverse affects.
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.