Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Presto, Chango! GOP Is Now Racist
AllSouthwest News Service ^ | December 30, 2002 | Bob Ward

Posted on 12/30/2002 5:39:35 PM PST by asneditor

Displaying a virtuosity that would have impressed George Orwell, the Democrats and their minions in the media have transformed segregation and racism into a Republican product.

Typical of this effort is the Los Angeles times column by Harold Meyerson. Meyerson asserts that Sen. Trent Lott's inane remark about Strom Thurmond "uncovered an entire history that the Republicans would greatly prefer to keep under wraps."

Meyerson goes further, saying that the GOP "would rather not be reminded of its origins." In reality -- in case anyone in the media cares about reality -- the "origins of the Republican Party were just fine as far as race is concerned. The GOP came into existence because the Whigs, the only contemporary party opposing the Democrats, were too timid to take a stand against slavery and secession. The party's first presidential candidate was Abraham Lincoln who, as the saying used to go, "freed the slaves." In fact, Lincoln was the reason that blacks, up until Roosevelt built his coalition, voted overwhelmingly Republican, except in the South, of course, where Democratically controlled state governments prevented them from voting at all.

But it didn't stop with Lincoln. There are more recent and more relevant points that expose the lie that links the Republican Party's to racism and segregation. For decades, the Southern tier of states was known as the Solid South because they voted solidly Democratic. In most of those states, if a politician won the Democratic primary it was tantamount to winning the election because the Republican presence was so feeble. So unless we're to believe that segregation -- separate waiting rooms, drinking fountains, schools and restaurants -- was the law in Boston and New York, it was the Democrats in the South that established segregation.

In fact, the civil rights movement of the 1960's, which saw many people from the Republican northern states challenge the authorities in Dixie, was a crusade to dismantle a system created and maintained by Democratic state legislators. The names associated with that struggle still resonate -- Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett, George Wallace, Bull Connor. The fire hoses and vicious dogs that were turned on civil rights marchers were in Democratic hands, not Republicans.

But even before the main thrust of the civil rights movement took hold, in 1957, there was a Federal court order mandating desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Four black children showed up to attend the school and a Democrat governor turned out his state's National Guard. Soldiers in full battle dress, equipped with rifles and bayonets bravely held out against the four black children.

Those kids might never have seen the inside of Little Rock's Central High School if it hadn't been for a Republican president who nationalized the state National Guard and sent in Federal troops to ensure the court orders were obeyed by the Democratic government of Arkansas. It was Democratic -- not Republican -- governors who stood in the schoolhouse door and cried, "Never!"

And, it's worth noting, they are still standing in the schoolhouse door crying never only now it's to prevent black and low-income kids from escaping the public schools by obtaining a voucher to attend a better, private school. Now, of course, the issue is not race but subservience to the teacher unions. But the effect is similar. It is minority children that suffer the consequences of this sellout to the unions.

The 1960s also saw passage of the landmark Civil Right Act of 1964 -- a bill that would not have passed but for Republican support. Meyerson notes that a majority of Republican senators voted for the bill but again, with considerable rhetorical skill -- uses that against the GOP but telling us that Republican congressman Tom DeLay "hastens to point out" that fact. Somehow, DeLay reminding us of the Republican role nullifies it.

Meyerson even resurrects Willie Horton, the black killer who was furloughed from prison by Democratic Gov. Mike Dukakis of Massachusetts. Dukakis' furloughing of Horton, who went on to kill while on furlough, was used against him in his presidential campaign against the first George Bush in 1992.

Meyerson's point seem te be that folks don't mind being killed by furloughed white convicts but if a governor furloughs a black convict who kills, voters will vote against him.

Harold is so determined to smear the GOP he tweaks history just a bit. He attributes the Willie Horton ad to Lee Atwater, the political operative who ran Bush's presidential campaign. In fact, the Horton ad first appeared in the Democratic primary. And, it was an independent group, not the Bush campaign and not the Republican Party, that used it against Dukakis in the general election.

We can look for this campaign to brand the GOP the party of racial segregation to continue right up until election day 2004. Republican voters should hope that their party leadership and their candidates have the moxie to label these charges as lies. The time for euphemisms is past.

The historical fact is that Democrats invented segregation, Democratic states spawned the KKK and the lynch mob and to say otherwise is a lie.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: civilrights; democrat; gop; haroldmeyerson; racism; trentlott; williehorton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: AndyMeyers
Part of your post needs to be repeated over and over and over:

"The original intent of the Civil Rights Act was to provide equal opportunity to all - a worthy objective. It has been perverted by non-elected and unaccountable bureaucrats and appointed and unaccountable Federal Judges into a law that requires equal results. Republican efforts to adhere to the original intent of the Civil Rights Act are characterized as discrimination - a return to "Jim Crow Law" days - by the Democrats and dominant media."

But the next line is wishful thinking:

"It is past time that our elected representatives took back their authority and responsibility from bureaucrats and federal judges as the ONLY officials who are to make laws."

There are not enough elected or to-be-elected officials alive who'd be willing to step up to the unionized bureaucracy, the entrenched leftists, and the activist judiciary to do any good. If they did recover their spine enough to override the system, they'd just keep on passing new laws that built on the bad precedent of decades.

It's a nice thought, but the battle is left and right, not just who gets to dominate the system.

PS: To Walt, this is a discussion of civil rights, Lincoln's reputation will probably survive without your "Lincoln is God" mantra fogging up the issue. Slavery was a secondary issue in his policies, right or wrong, his program was to keep authority in DC and to manage the rest of it as it might develop.

This discussion is all about what's happened since that came to pass and DC has issued multiple, but misrepresented, edicts involving 'equality', 'race', and now 'diversity'.

21 posted on 12/31/2002 9:24:20 AM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: asneditor
Republican voters should hope that their party leadership and their candidates have the moxie to label these charges as lies. The time for euphemisms is past.

The historical fact is that Democrats invented segregation, Democratic states spawned the KKK and the lynch mob and to say otherwise is a lie.


LOTTS OF WORK TO DO


22 posted on 12/31/2002 9:30:25 AM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PARodrig; Clemenza; RaceBannon; firebrand; nutmeg; zelig; Dutchy; rmlew; Yehuda; Black Agnes
a rather interesting thread on the GOP
23 posted on 12/31/2002 9:57:38 AM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
Lott has ruined us as a party for decades to come, until this episode passes out of popular memory. Even worse was the lack of screaming moral outrage from Republicans. Even now. He should be made to leave the Senate entirely, 50-50 be damned. Political concerns were the reason Clinton was not convicted too. And this whole brothers-in-the-Senate thing always goes too far. The gentlemanly tradition. I spit on the gentlemanly tradition that keeps Lott's ass in the Senate.
24 posted on 12/31/2002 11:11:06 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: asneditor
The party's first presidential candidate was Abraham Lincoln

I could be wrong, but I thought that John C. Fremont was the first Republican candidate for President, Lincoln being the first one to win.

25 posted on 12/31/2002 11:22:15 AM PST by CaptRon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
LOL

Oklahoma had representatives in the Dixiecrats as well.

BTW, how many Klan members in North Mississippi have you known personally.

Link to Oklahoma Klan:

http://www.americanknights.com/Okl/

Link to Tulsa mass murder of blacks May 1921:

http://www.africana.com/DailyArticles/index_20010719.htm


Looks like those darn racist scoundrels are everywhere doesn't it?
26 posted on 12/31/2002 11:30:01 AM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: asneditor
Wasn't the year 1854 when the Republican party was born in order to help abolish slavery? Wasn't the birth of the Republican party drawn from the contempt by the Democratic party to abolish slavery? Wasn't it the Southern states that held on to slavery and are the primary Democrats even today? Isn't the Democratic party the party most black now associate with?

Therefore, isn't it the blacks who are Democrats that are the most racist against themselves?

27 posted on 12/31/2002 11:51:35 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
He knew that if slavery were restricted to the area it currently occupied, it would die. The slavers knew it to.

And I suppose that's why they took the ONE action that would permanently separate them from any future access to those very same territories?

28 posted on 12/31/2002 1:43:52 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
I like the way you state your case, although I would disagree with your assertions that Thurmond and Lott are racists. They have their natural dispositions towards others, as do we all, but to be called a racist in my book, one has to actively DO something against a group. By your definition, a racist is all of us, with few exceptions.

I agree that the horrible incident you witnessed 20 years ago, is racism at its worst, for the man was intimating something worse than hatred, action against a person or group, for no reason other than race.

You are also right, that the republicans need to go on the attack, read the Clinton playbook and campaign nationally, constantly, and smear the other guys with all manners of accusations. We can use the truth, which makes it even harder for them to be refuted.

The post by an American Indian, was "Why I would have voted for Strom in '48

29 posted on 12/31/2002 2:09:08 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Destro
RE; your comments to ChemistCat, maybe the forum is hitting its stride, when thoughts and opinions were freely bantered without hatred or name calling? It is so nice to see opinions well stated and logically supported.
30 posted on 12/31/2002 2:14:19 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fire_eye
I just can't get over the feeling that the Demons are wasting their time with this issue Let us hope so, but it is not meant to be a talking point until the election IMO. I believe it is meant to be a spark to ignite riots this summer if the economy tanks, or another Rodney King thing surfaces. It doesn't matter if something happens to trigger racial unrest, as those things can be manufactured to happen, and are part and parcel of the Communist playbook.
31 posted on 12/31/2002 2:19:09 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
Yoo bad in these hard times, that principle has to be bypassed in favor of pragmatism. The attack on Lott was meant to change the political balance of power, the attack against Clinton, would have only changed the man.
32 posted on 12/31/2002 2:22:59 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: asneditor
In fact, the Horton ad first appeared in the Democratic primary. And, it was an independent group, not the Bush campaign and not the Republican Party, that used it against Dukakis in the general election.

Actually, it was a Reader's Digest article that roused the country, and spread national anti-Dukakis sentiment beneath the mainstream media radar screen. Atwater overheard truckers discussing the article at a truck stop. Here's the kicker: the Digest article, titled "Getting Away With Murder," DID NOT MENTION HORTON'S RACE. At all.

33 posted on 12/31/2002 2:29:36 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Paul Ross
It's true enough that Lincoln played a major role in getting the 13th Amendment ratified, but what did he have to do with the 14th Amendment? My understanding is, it wasn't even drafted until problems appeared in the enforcement of the Reconstruction Act of 1865 (passed, unless I am mistaken, after Lincoln's assassination.)
35 posted on 12/31/2002 2:40:25 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
I take it you would like to see Daschle continue as majority leader of the Senate.
36 posted on 12/31/2002 2:42:05 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I absolutely cannot deny it; however, luckily for me, the people I know here are nothing like some of the individuals I ran into when I lived in Florida, Mississippi, and Georgia. But it surely is here. May I remain ignorant of more than this cursory knowledge!

Finding websites for Oklahoma doesn't refute what I said about Mississippi, though. It's everywhere. I wouldn't want to bet against the Klan being in Alaska or Hawaii. (Though that's a stretch, fer sure....)
37 posted on 12/31/2002 4:04:55 PM PST by ChemistCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
May I remain ignorant of more than this cursory knowledge!

OK. Funny thing is....I'm 7th generation Mississippian and have never known a Klan member personally from that state hence I found your statement about Northern Mississippians being a half Klan voting block a bit of a stretch. I'm glad my homestate is there to give everyone a nice toughstone for superiority musings....what would FReepers do without Mississippi or West Virginia....geez, I don't know?...maybe self reflect...lol

38 posted on 12/31/2002 4:34:53 PM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I didn't mean to say it was half-Klan. If I did, I apologize. That part of the state is about half black, if I'm not mistaken, so that would be more than absurd. I do believe that the Klan mindset has quite a bit of influence on some local and state politics in that particular region, but I'm not out to start a fight about it. Been there, done that, didn't even get a T-shirt. :-)
39 posted on 12/31/2002 5:51:28 PM PST by ChemistCat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
He knew that if slavery were restricted to the area it currently occupied, it would die. The slavers knew it to.

And I suppose that's why they took the ONE action that would permanently separate them from any future access to those very same territories?

The slave power expected to get Mexico, Cuba and Central America, at least.

I posted this once before. I guess you just missed it:

"Pollard could vision steps and advances "toward the rearing of that great Southern Empire, whose seat is eventually to be in Central America, and whose boundaries are to enclose the Gulf of Mexico." Ahead were "magnificent fields of romance" for the South, as he saw its future. "It is an empire founded on military ideas; representing the noble peculiarities of southern civilization; including within its limits the isthmuses of America and the regenerated West Indies; having control of the two dominant staples of the world's commerce—cotton and sugar; possessing the highways of the world's commerce; surpassing all empires of the world's ages in the strength of its geographical position." Philadelphia newspapers quoted a speech by Senator Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia in their city. "We believe that capital should own labor; is there any doubt that there must be a laboring class everywhere? In all countries and under every form of social organization there must be a laboring class -- a class of men who get their living from the sweat of their brow; and then there must be another class that controls and directs the capital of the country. He pleaded: "Slave property stands upon the same footing as all other descriptions of property."

--"Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, Prairie Years, by Carl Sandburg pp.217-221

Polk tried to get the money to buy Cuba.

Don't you know the history?

Walt

40 posted on 12/31/2002 7:30:55 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson