MSNBC: Pushing the Claim that Republicans Were Against 1964 Civil Rights Act

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

MSNBC: Pushing the Claim that Republicans Were Against 1964 Civil Rights Act

Written By : Warner Todd Huston

On MSNBC on October 27, Rachel Maddow interviewed Jane Hamsher, well-known Hollywood roustabout and left-wing blogger for FireDogLake.com. The subject was the progress of Obamacare in the Senate and Senator Joe Lieberman’s warning that he might join a Republican filibuster of the Baucus bill if it contained the so-called public option.

During the discussion, however, Hamsher went off on a tangent about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and made the allusion that the famed anti-civil rights Dixiecrats joined Republicans to stand in the way of civil rights during the 1964 debates.

Maddow: Let me ask you about the statistic I attributed to you in my intro there – I know you have been doing some digging on this issue – of a Democrat joining a Republican filibuster. How, how unprecedented would a move like this be for Senator Lieberman?

Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters …

Naturally, host Maddow did not correct Hamsher’s misleading claim that the GOP stood in the way of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In reality, Republicans were great supporters of the legislation. Leave it to MSNBC to continue the left’s favorite myth that Republicans are against civil rights for blacks.

Of course, the truth is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act saw strong Republican support. In fact, of the total number of Republicans then serving in Congress support never dipped below 70% on any of the final vote counts. The original House version got 80% GOP support, the Senate version got 82% and the final vote in the House was 82% of Republicans in support. On the other hand, Congressional Democrats never saw higher than 69% of its membership in support of civil rights for blacks.

And who one of the leading voices in favor of passage? It was Illinois Senator Edward Dirksen, a Republican. Who was a leading voice opposing civil rights? Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia and still serving in that chamber.

If it were up to Democrats in 1964 the Civil Rights Act would never have passed. Yet here is the uninformed Hollywood Author Jane Hamsher of the extremist website FireDogLake falsely claiming that it was the GOP that stood in the way of civil rights for blacks. And it is MSNBC letting her get away with the falsity.

(Hamsher’s bit is at around the 4:10 mark)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

(H/T ProteinWisdom.com)

Jack Schite

Ok you proved your point that the republican party has gone off the rails, but that's about it.

Sources for your stats?
http://www.comics.com/editoons/asay/ Zheldon

And the bonus point that liberals hate knowledge and truth. All they care about is rewriting history to make themselves look good.
abcxyz

This was the break down of votes on the 1964 Civil Right Act from google answers.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/1…

House of Representatives:

Democrats for: 152

Democrats against: 96

Republicans for: 138

Republicans against: 34

Senate:

Democrats for: 46

Democrats against: 21

Republicans for: 27

Republicans against: 6

It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill,

92 to 11. I couldn't find break down for the Republicans.
D-Vega

So Republicans DID join Dixiecrats to oppose civil rights legislation. It wasn't a misleading claim at all.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

So Republicans DID join Dixiecrats to oppose civil rights legislation. It wasn't a misleading claim at all.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-30 10:14:00

Yes IT WAS, as Hamsher was implying that ALL Republicans were opposed, 'the Republicans' from:

Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters

is all inclusive. If he had said SOME reps you might have a case. As it is Hamsher was inaccurate, misleading, or both.
MediumHeadBoy

The fact that Vega can't distinguish "Dixiecrats joining the Republicans" from "Republicans joining the Dixiecrats" is not the least bit surprising, since he still believes that saying the media wants Donovan McNabb to succeed because he's black somehow "proves" that Rush Limbaugh is a racist.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

So Republicans DID join Dixiecrats to oppose civil rights legislation.

Except, oh wait, that isn't what Hamsher said. As usual, D-Vega, you twist the facts to make them mean what you want them to mean, rather than dealing with reality.

Read it again, oh illiterate one:

Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters …

"Dixicrats joining the Republicans"? Funny, I don't remember that. My history book says it was the so-called "Dixiecrats" (way to run afoul of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy btw) who led the charge against Civil Rights, and all of 20 percent of the Republican Party at the time joined them (by contrast, around 40 percent of Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act).

I know you leftists like to pretend that the Democratic Party is the party of "tolerance" but it just isn't so.
whats_up

I couldn't find break down for the Republicans.

Posted by abcxyz

2009-10-30 09:39:05

It is even worse for Southern Republicans, not one southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act. This really came down on a regional vote, With the exception of the 11 southern Dems that voted for the bill every other southern politician voted against it, truly sad.
Jack Schite

So what? Lincoln was a republican too. Is that all your party has to offer? Stories of past progress?

It does help to show how your party now has fuck all to offer.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

It does help to show how your party now has fuck all to offer.

Posted by Jack Schite

2009-10-30 10:36:40

Oh look Jack Auf has no freakin clue what the GOP or conservatives have to offer, but speaks as though he's an expert, why are we not surprised.
http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com huckupchuck1

Sure it was the Dixiecrats who led the charge to oppose the Civil Rights act, and prominent Republicans such as Barry Goldwater joined them.

But what often gets conveniently overlooked is that a fair number of those Dixiecrats, following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, switched parties and joined up with the GOP.

The most prominent of these, of course, is Strom Thurmond, who was loved and embraced by the GOP for the remainder of his long, long, long career in the Senate.

So, if conservatives want to make an argument that the Dixiecrats are the culpable group, so be it. But then conservatives also have to accept the reality that these Dixiecrats migrated towards the GOP following the vote. Passage of the Civil Rights Act for the most part shed the Dixiecrat segregationists from the Democratic Party. And as a Democrat in 2009, I'll take that outcome every single time.

abcxyz comments above: "I couldn't find break down for the Republicans."

From Wikipedia's entry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

I've always maintained that it wasn't a Democrat vs. Republican thing, but a northern versus southern thing. The information above seems to prove that. All I'll say is that the GOP is strong in the South today, and Democrats aren't. To me, that says it all.
Scum_Watcher_88

Posted by Jack Schite

2009-10-30 10:36:40

Oh look.

The little boy is cussing to try to shock us and look "cool".

Grow up, child….or go back to 4chan or something.
D-Vega

That's funny. That is also why Republicans always cite the percentages, rather than the actual numbers.

I know you leftists like to pretend that the Democratic Party is the party of "tolerance" but it just isn't so.

I never made any such claims about the Dems, now or in the past.

Dixicrats joined Republicans. Republicans joined Dixiecrats. There is not a difference.

The author's headline is "MSNBC: Pushing the Claim that Republicans Were Against 1964 Civil Rights".

Republicans WERE against 1964 Civil Rights. Democrats were too, and MSNBC noted that. That the Dixicrats joined with Reps.

The fact is there was a coalition built between Reps and Dixicrats (Southern Democrats) to stop the CRA.

This guy or Maddow didn't say "all", didn't say one group was larger than the other.
D-Vega

I should rephrase that to:

The fact is there was a coalition built between SOUTHERN Reps and Dixicrats (Southern Democrats) to stop the CRA.

Is that better?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

It is even worse for Southern Republicans, not one southern Republican voted for the Civil Rights Act.

Yeah, all eleven Southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act. As opposed to the one hundred and seven Southern Democrats who voted nay.

But what often gets conveniently overlooked is that a fair number of those Dixiecrats, following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, switched parties and joined up with the GOP.

And yet for some reason, liberals never seem to be able to name all these "Dixiecrats" (there goes that "No True Scotsman" fallacy again) who supposedly "switched parties". Whenever we ask we get Strom Thurmond and…..that's about it. Just Strom Thurmond. Nobody ever seems to come up with anyone else.

Also, I'm curious as to why exactly it's the least bit relevant. Even if it were true that the so-called "Dixiecrats" changed sides en masse after the Civil Rights Act, so what? Did they try to advance a neo-segregationist agenda? No. Did they mount a charge to repeal the Civil Rights Act? No. Did they do anything to reverse the progress of civil rights in America? Yet again, no.

So even if it did happen, why is it relevant? If Robert Byrd, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, can be fully accepted by the Democratic Party despite his past, why can't the same be said of the so-called "Dixiecrats"?
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

But what often gets conveniently overlooked is that a fair number of those Dixiecrats, following the passage of the Civil Rights Act, switched parties and joined up with the GOP.

So how come those who make that claim can only name one?
D-Vega

Shocker – the South was virulently racist in the 60's.
http://huckupchuck.blogspot.com huckupchuck1

And let's also not forget that one outcome of the Civil Rights Act for the GOP was the splintering of the GOP with the end result that Barry Goldwater became the GOP's nominee for the White House over Nelson Rockefeller. And the only states Goldwater won in his race against Lyndon Johnson, outside of his home state of Arizona, was the Dixiecrat south consisting of SC, GA, AL, MS, and my home state of LA.

What seems clear to me is that those Northern "Rockefeller" Republicans who voted to support the Civil Rights Act in 1964 would today be vilified by the conservative base as contemptible "squishes" and "RINOs."

The Democratic Party, with its majority support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in defiance of the segregationist Dixiecrats, for the most part shed these Dixiecrats from their ranks; and the Republican Party of today is going in the opposite direction by attempting to shed its pro Civil Rights Act "Rockefeller" Republican wing from its own ranks.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

That's funny.

Yes, your pathetic attempt to disassociate yourself with your own party's past racism is indeed funny. In fact it's hilarious. I'm almost tearing up as I watch it.

That is also why Republicans always cite the percentages, rather than the actual numbers.

Of course we do. Because raw numbers are meaningless. The reason why more "actual numbers" of Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act is because there were more Democrats than Republicans in office at the time. So of course, liberals are going to ONLY cite the raw numbers rather than the more accurate and more relevant percentages.

But hey, if you really want to cite actual numbers, I'm game for that.

Let's see, all of eleven Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act. One hundred and seven Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act.

I love citing "actual numbers", don't you D-Vega?

Dixicrats joined Republicans. Republicans joined Dixiecrats. There is not a difference.

The fact that you don't see a difference only highlights your lack of higher reasoning skills.

Republicans WERE against 1964 Civil Rights. Democrats were too, and MSNBC noted that. That the Dixicrats joined with Reps.

Notice how Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act are called "Dixiecrats" while Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act (all eleven of them) are just "Republicans". You don't try to separate them from the rest of the Party like you do with the so-called "Dixiecrats", do you? No, you keep referring to them as plain old "Republicans" in an effort to maintain the fraudulent association between the Republican Party and the anti-civil rights movement.

Thank you for proving my entire point.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

What seems clear to me

Of course it seems clear. To you. But then, what "seems clear" to you is a matter of some debate, now isn't it? After all, you see only what you want to see so things that "seem clear" to you don't always jibe with, y'know, reality.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Shocker – the South was virulently racist in the 60's.

It was also overwhelmingly Democrat. The left would have you believe this was a coincidence.
http://TheNixonTape.Blogspot.Com Dick_Nixon

Kleagle Byrd. Says it all.
D-Vega

Yes, your pathetic attempt to disassociate yourself with your own party's past racism is indeed funny. In fact it's hilarious. I'm almost tearing up as I watch it.

This entire post is about a Republican trying to distance himself from YOUR own party's racism, mighty.

Of course we do. Because raw numbers are meaningless. The reason why more "actual numbers" of Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act is because there were more Democrats than Republicans in office at the time. So of course, liberals are going to ONLY cite the raw numbers rather than the more accurate and more relevant percentages.

The numbers are meaningful, because the Reps were a severe minority party at the time.

Let's see, all of eleven Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act. One hundred and seven Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. I love citing "actual numbers", don't you D-Vega?

Go back up and do your math again, mighty.

The fact that you don't see a difference only highlights your lack of higher reasoning skills.

Yeah, I know. It's always a nuance when it comes to excusing your own party but when its the Dems its a generalization.

Notice how Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act are called "Dixiecrats" while Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act (all eleven of them) are just "Republicans". You don't try to separate them from the rest of the Party like you do with the so-called "Dixiecrats", do you? No, you keep referring to them as plain old "Republicans" in an effort to maintain the fraudulent association between the Republican Party and the anti-civil rights movement.

The Dixicrats labeled themselves. The Republicans who they joined didn't distance themselves from the rest of the party in that way. I didn't create the Dixicrats label.

It was also overwhelmingly Democrat. The left would have you believe this was a coincidence.

The COUNTRY was overwhelmingly Democrat, mighty. That is why the right cites the percentages.

And its soooo funny how Democrat Party = left, but your wear the "Republicans don't = conservatives" cloak when its convenient for you.
Scum_Watcher_88

Ok, now that my quick aside of child slapping is done, I'll address the topic at hand.

I actually think both sides here are building straw men and making meaningless arguments. I mean does it really matter in today's political enviorment who voted for the '64 law in large numbers and who didn't? In the past 45 years, much has changed and both parties have changed/evolved/devolved/whatever. There has been a complete turn-over in party leadership since then and the issue and enviorment are different. Is there anyone in congress now that was there at the time and voted one way or another? (with Kennedy's death, I think Byrd might be the only one but I may be wrong..) And as Sam pointed out, has anyone in recent decades on either side pushed a segragationist agenda? Oh course not.

The '64 law is now in the realm of a historical event and while it may be interesting to look at who voted in what manner at the time, this excercise only helps us understand the political climate of the mid-sixties and is pretty meaningless in helping to define the political parties as they exist now. People change as do parties. For example the Dems used to stand up for traditional values and were much more conservative than they are now. But now they are the party of change for sake of change and are generally hostile to tradition. Likewise in the era of Teddy Roosevelt, the Republicans championed unions and lead the charge against labor abuses. But today they are the party of big business and laissez-faire capitalism.

My final point in all this is that worrying about how one side or another voted in 1964 is meaningless in understanding the political climate of today.
D-Vega

So would true blue conservatives of today support or oppose the CRA?

Think about it first.
Scum_Watcher_88

So would true blue conservatives of today support or oppose the CRA?

For the most part, yes.

Conservatives believe that the goverment should not be in the business of discrimination based on race. That's why we oppose afirmative action. The major part of the '64 law was aimed at dismantling Jim Crow, which is a goal that most conservatives would agree with.

Were they would disagree is were the '64 law went too far in limiting personal choice and harming freedom of association.
D-Vega

I dunno. The CRA still seems to be contrary to the current conservative position on state rights.
Scum_Watcher_88

I dunno. The CRA still seems to be contrary to the current conservative position on state rights.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-30 11:53:20

Nonsense, Vega.

The only way that would be the case is if you took the "states rights" argument to an extreme…and very few on our side are of that mind. Most conservatives believe that there are issues that are serious enough that they trump the right of the states to make their own rules. Look at the Conservative reaction to states that legalize "medical marajauna", homosexual marriage, or are soft on illegal immigration for example. A states rights absolutist might dismiss each of these issues as being the right of an individual region to make a bad call. But they are almost universally condemned by us on the Right.

The '64 law's major provisions that dismantled Jim Crow are very similar in that they would NOT be considered a "states rights" issue.
D-Vega

So Goldwater and Reagan were wrong about the CRA, even if on principle grounds?
bkopping

The CRA did not violate the Constitution because of the 14th and 15th Amendment.

Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

…

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment 15 – Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Scum_Watcher_88

No one is infaliable, Vega. Not even Reagan, who most on my side (rightfully mind you) admire.

For example, Reagan signed the god awful and cynically misnamed "Firearms Owners Protection Act" of 1986. So he was not above making bad calls even though for the most part he was a reliable iconic conservative.

Do you agree with my statement that arguing over who voted which way 45 years ago is meaningless in understanding today's political enviorment?
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

This entire post is about a Republican trying to distance himself from YOUR own party's racism, mighty.

And what "racism" would that be, D-Vega? The overwhelming support for civil rights, perhaps? The history of the Republican Party as the original "anti-slavery" party? The present efforts by the Republican Party to help black families get their children out of failing and crime-ridden inner city schools with voucher programs? Was that the "racism" you were referring to, D-Vega?

This is really quite amusing. Of the two of us, you're the one who keeps insisting that Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act were not Democrats at all. You're the one who keeps insisting that they be called "Dixiecrats", as if that somehow magically absolves your party of your association with them.

So really, of the two of us, which one of us is really trying to distance himself from his party's past attitudes?

The numbers are meaningful, because the Reps were a severe minority party at the time.

Thank you for restating my entire point, parrot fashion.

The Republicans were a minority party at the time. So of course an examination of "actual numbers" is going to show fewer Republican supporters of the Civil Rights Act.

I really don't see why you think this proves anything, D-Vega. You wanna use "actual numbers" to show that more Democrats than Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act? Fine. Go right ahead. But you're going to run face-first into the fact that more Democrats also opposed the Civil Rights Act.

So what does using "actual numbers" actually prove? Nothing. It only highlights the fact that, at that time, Democrats happened to have a Congressional majority.

Go back up and do your math again, mighty.

You're right, I meant to say Southern Republicans. My mistake.

Yeah, I know. It's always a nuance when it comes to excusing your own party but when its the Dems its a generalization.

Yet again, I'm not the one using terms like "Dixiecrat".

I believe there's an old saying about stones…glass houses…throwing things…something like that?

The Dixicrats labeled themselves.

No they didn't. The so-called "Dixiecrats" were actually called the "States Rights Democratic Party", a segment of the overall Democratic Party. As far as I'm aware, "Dixiecrats" was never an official name for their group.

The COUNTRY was overwhelmingly Democrat, mighty. That is why the right cites the percentages.

Yes, that is precisely my point.

I swear, D-Vega, I'm going to have to break out the diagrams and hand puppets if you don't at least try to comprehend this simple fact. Democrats had a Congressional majority, so OF COURSE more individual Democrats than Republicans supported the CRA. Trying to claim that this means anything is disingenuous in the extreme.

It's like trying to claim that if I have two oranges and five apples, and over the course of a seven days I eat one piece of fruit per day, I must like apples more than oranges simply because I happened to eat more apples. (I know your tiny brain will have difficulty comprehending this analogy, but I find it's important that young children be challenged rather than have everything dumbed down for them. You seem to have the mental age of a young child, so I'm applying the same logic to you.)

And once again, even if you want to deal with "actual numbers" you're still going to run smack into the fact that more Democrats also OPPOSED the CRA. Counting both Southern and Northern Congressmen, forty Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act. One hundred and seventeen Democrats were opposed.

You really want to run around touting "actual numbers", D-Vega? Feel free. It doesn't actually prove anything, though.

And its soooo funny how Democrat Party = left, but your wear the "Republicans don't = conservatives" cloak when its convenient for you.

"Convenient". Right. Keep telling yourself that, D-Vega.

The right has always maintained a distinction between conservatives and Republicans. The left has never done the same with liberals and Democrats. Except, of course, when you want to promote the lie that the so-called "Dixiecrats" were never Democrats.
TheBaud

I cannot beleive that the Left is trying to defend their racist past again. Let's look at a few facts.

1) Johnson did not need a single Republican vote to pass the bill. Only after so many Democrats refused to support it was he forced to beg the Republicans for their support.

2) The bill was filibustered by Robert Byrd (KKK-WV), William Fulbright (Bill Clinton's Political mentor), and Al Gore Sr… ALL DEMOCRATS!

3) While some Dixiecrats did move the Republican party, many stayed Democrats all their political careers, like Fritz Hollings.

Bottom line, without Republican support, the Democrats attack on the 1964 Civil Rights act would have killed it.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

So would true blue conservatives of today support or oppose the CRA?

It's not as simple as "support or oppose" D-Vega. The question is why. That's precisely what you liberals never understood about conservatives like Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater supported all previous federal civil rights legislation. His opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his belief that some parts of it went too far, specifically the parts that interfered with the right of private individuals to do business (or not) with whomever they chose, and that those parts interfered with the rights of the states. He never supported government-enforced racial segregation and, as I stated previously, he supported all previous federal legislation expanding civil rights.

The so-called "Dixiecrats", on the other hand, were an explicitly segregationist sub-group of the Democratic Party. Indeed their stated slogan was "Segregation Forever!"
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

The CRA did not violate the Constitution because of the 14th and 15th Amendment.

Except the Civil Rights Act was actually passed under the Commerce Clause, not the 14th and 15th Amendments.

Besides, the 14th and 15th Amendments only deal with legal rights. That is, those recognized and enforced by the government. The 1964 CRA, on the other hand, dealt also with private matters. The 14th and 15th Amendments do not and never have given the federal government the power to enforce "diversity" in the private sector.

If the CRA had limited itself to removing only legal barriers to black Americans, that would be different. If it had only desegregated public schools, government offices, and other public places, there would be no conflict with states' rights. But instead the writers of the 1964 CRA decided to expand it to include private business as well as public facilities. They had the best of intentions, but they were still wrong to go that far.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

Posted by bkopping

2009-10-30 12:24:16

Also of note, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 couldn't have been justified under the 14th Amendment because the Supreme Court explicitly forbade Congress from using the Equal Protection Clause to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals in a series of cases known as the Civil Rights Cases. (United States v. Stanley; United States v. Ryan; United States v. Nichols; United States v. Singleton; Robinson et ux. v. Memphis & Charleston R.R. Co.)

In addition, the Supreme Court also held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which provided that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude") was unconstitutional.

Despite liberal objections, private businesses DO have a Constitutional right to discriminate. As a business owner, if I don't want to employ you or do business with you, I don't have to. The reason why is unimportant. It's my business and I can employ or do business with whomever I see fit. To say that I am required by law to employ and/or do business with certain individuals is not only an infringement on my personal property rights, it makes disagreement with certain government edicts a crime.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

At this point MSNBC is a foul propaganda arm, its General Electric's mouthpiece to lie and slander and distort while singing absurd and over the top praises of an empty suit. There's a reason it gets so few viewers (if all the goofy bloggers who watch it to find things to attack would stop, it would have even fewer).
tblrk2006

That is also why Republicans always cite the percentages, rather than the actual numbers.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-30 10:54:49

Thats b/c it tells the story. Raw numbers mean nothing. Just look at how you dems like to report just the dollar amount of profits (oil companies) while conveniently leaving out what percent margin it is. Your either too dumb or are doing it on purpose to herd the sheep.
Sammy

Posted by mightysamurai

2009-10-30 13:10:06

Your last paragaraph says it all and it is the reason that the 1964 CRA was indeed a bad act. Why are conservatives so afraid to say that the 1964 CRA was indeed a bad piece of legislation? It was. Yes, I know the answer is that you can't be against anything that contains the words "Civil Rights" or else you are a racist! Sorry but I won't play that game.

Goldwater and Reagan were right to oppose this act because it infringes on individual rights and tries to enforce morality on private individuals — that's the bottom line regardless of the other provisions that might have been good. It is my contention that a business owner that uses race to exclude employees or customers probably won't be in business very long anyway.

Can I say it again and with authority? I will…………..

THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS A BAD PIECE OF LEGISLATION!!!!!!!

Let's celebrate those such as Goldwater and Reagan that stood up to this assault on liberty and did so not because of racism, but rather because they supported the rights of the individual to freely choose in our society — even if we all may not agree with those choices.
D-Vega

So the claim that Republicans were against the 1964 Civil Rights Act is indeed true. Thanks.
http://soliver.typepad.com Major_O

I'm just amazed at the fact that any serious person would try to deny the overwhelmingly racist past of the Democrat party. I don't even care if they say "Yes it USED to be that way but today it's different." Fine. But I simply cannot believe someone would even TRY to pin "racism" on the Republican party.

And again wrt to the "Dixiecrats that moved over" as has been said, "NAME MORE THAN A HANDFUL!!" My entire adult life when that tired "fact" is trotted out, INVARIABLY it is "Strom Thurmond". Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get Jesse Helms. And that number in no way overcomes the many who stayed in the Dem party (Byrd to this day).

I once asked my grandmother why so many of us black folks always voted Democrat. I think I was asking if any black people she knew were Republicans (Granny was born in 1912, the youngest in a huge family and her grandmother was a slave as a child). She said, "No, back when, almost all black folks were Republicans because that was the party of Lincoln but it seemed like in Philly [where she lived mostly] a lot more people were Democrats around the War [WWII]"

Who were the ones standing in the school house doors? Democrat governors! (paraphrase) "Segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation forever!"

And who was the party that had anti-civil rights planks in its party platform for DECADES?? Democrats!

Who was filibustering the civil rights legislation? DEMOCRATS!!

My point is not to then say so the Dem party is tarnished forever with racism (although I think in many ways, certain ideas of liberalism are racists in ways not realized by Dems), but simply to shout a HOW DARE YOU! to the people who have the GALL to try and pass off THEIR legacy as the Republican legacy.

In many ways, there's no love lost between me and the apparently RINO dominated GOP these days, but I'm not going to stand by and listen to outright falsehood attributed to them, either.
TheBaud

So the claim that Republicans were against the 1964 Civil Rights Act is indeed true. Thanks.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 15:13:44

You are completely incapable of admitting you were wrong on anything, D-Vega. What a pathetic little shit you are!
http://soliver.typepad.com Major_O

Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters

Oh, and someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but my recollection is that no Republican filibustered the Act–it was Democrats. So why is Hamsher saying the above?
http://soliver.typepad.com Major_O

So the claim that Republicans were against the 1964 Civil Rights Act is indeed true. Thanks.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-30 15:13:44

Except that wasn't "the claim." The complaint that is the burden of this post is that Hamsher misleadingly implied that Republicans were the ones preventing passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when, in point of fact, it was Democrats.
D-Vega

Except that wasn't "the claim."

I was citing the author's headine –

"MSNBC: Pushing the Claim that Republicans Were Against 1964 Civil Rights Act"

It is indeed true they were against the CRA.

The complaint that is the burden of this post is that Hamsher misleadingly implied that Republicans were the ones preventing passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when, in point of fact, it was Democrats.

That wasn't her implication. Her implication was that Dixiecrats joined Republicans to stop the CRA. And that is true.

If no Republicans were to have joined the Dixies, they would not have been able to mount an offense against passage.

BOTH parties share the blame. The Dems accounted for more nays than Reps, yes, but the fact remains.
TheBaud

Her implication was that Dixiecrats joined Republicans to stop the CRA. And that is true.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 16:07:10

Provide for us the names of the Republicans that led the filibuster against the CRA, the one that the Dixiecrats joined, as you claim is the truth.
D-Vega

The nay votes are above, Baud. I told you if you wanna play dumb games, go to facebook.

The Dixiecrats alone could not have mounted a challenge to the vote.
TheBaud

The Dixiecrats alone could not have mounted a challenge to the vote.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 16:15:03

Fuck you and your childish and petty taunts, D-Vega.

It was the Dixiecrats that were at the forefront pushing the opposition to the CRA. Lifelong democrats like Fulbright, Gore, Sr. and Byrd… racists one and all. The CRA could have passed without a single Republican vote, but the Democrat opposition was so big that Johnson had to beg the Republicans to support it, which they did.

The Dixiecrats DID mount a significant challenge to the CRA that failed only becuase of Republican support for the CRA.

But you know all this and are either comfortable in your lie or to arrogant to admit you are wrong. No matter, eveyone else here also know what an ass you are.
D-Vega

No one said Reps were at the forefront, Baud. You are moving the goalposts.

The FACT is that Dixiecrats could not have been an issue if all Reps voted for the CRA. But they had Republican support, because some Reps joined with the Southern Dems. That is an indisputable fact.

BOTH parties share blame in this. Stop being an idiot.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Vega, at some point you need to back off, ok? You keep saying she's right when she clearly was not. Stop defending and comprehend she was at best exaggerating, and at worst deliberately, willfully slandering an entire people. Get a grip, Vega.
TheBaud

No one said Reps were at the forefront, Baud. You are moving the goalposts.

The FACT is that Dixiecrats could not have been an issue if all Reps voted for the CRA. But they had Republican support, because some Reps joined with the Southern Dems. That is an indisputable fact.

BOTH parties share blame in this. Stop being an idiot.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-30 16:31:41

You mean except for Hamsher and you!

"Her implication was that Dixiecrats joined Republicans to stop the CRA. And that is true."

The Dixiecrats joined the Republicans, meaning the Republicans were the opposition, and the Dixiecrats just joined them.

Of course, in the very next paragraph, you claimed the Republicans joined the Dixiecrats. Can't make up your mind, I see.

It is you and the Left trying to claim and justify that the CRA was opposed by Republicans. You made that claim yourself. Unfortunately, the facts are against you. The Democrats/Dixiecrats mounted an powerful effort, led by three powerful members of Congress. They pulled so many Democrats to their side that Johnson had to go beg the Republicans to put aside partisanship and support his bill… WHICH THEY DID.

Had this been a party-line vote, the measure would have passed with ease. The Democrats did not need a single Republican vote and the Republicans were in a huge miniority.

The Democrats opposed this bill and actively filibustered to stop it. I take your inability to know the Republican sponsor of this filibuster as an admission that you are full of shit!

So stop being an asshole and just admit you were wrong. You are the only person that doesn't know this.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

So stop being an asshole and just admit you were wrong. You are the only person that doesn't know this.

I'm sure Hell will freeze over first. Liberals generally believe in the dictum "Repeat a lie often enough and it will become accepted as the truth."
DrEvil

Democrats were the party of the Confederacy. Democrats were the party that overturned most if not all of the civil rights laws passed by the Republicans following the Civil War. Democrats passed all of the Jim Crow laws. Democrats were the party of segregation. Democrats were the party of the Southern Manifesto. Democrats were the party that filibustered Civil Righs bills in the 1960s. One Democrat, Strom Thurmond, switches parties in the late 1960s and that is proof that the Republicans not the Democrats is the party of racists. Democrats have always been the party of discrimination. For the first 130 years they discriminated against black and for the last 40 years they have discriminated against whites. That's quite a history.

Have an Evil day
http://soliver.typepad.com Major_O

D-Vega's stubborn refusal to admit what is clear is staggering. Folks, this is why this country is headed for major conflict. We can't even admit that when the sky is blue, it's blue.

Hamsher's implication is clear to any fair-minded person that the Democrats JOINED the Republicans in filibustering.

However, neither her, nor D-Vega can produce the names of the Republicans that filibustered. But THAT'S HER CLAIM!

Maddow: Let me ask you about the statistic I attributed to you in my intro there – I know you have been doing some digging on this issue – of a Democrat joining a Republican filibuster. How, how unprecedented would a move like this be for Senator Lieberman?

Clearly, the topic they were discussing is DEMOCRATS JOINING REPUBLICANS IN A REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTER!!!! How much clearer can it be stated??

To which, Hamsher logically follows Maddow's train of thought and adds:

Hamsher: Well, we have seen a number of the other party cross overs…well we remember the Dixiecrats joining the Republicans in the sixties on civil rights filibusters …</b

It's abundantly clear the lie being pushed here is that it was REPUBLICANS filibustering (as in Maddow's question) and the Democrat/Dixiecrats were "joining" that Republican effort.

I don't know D-Vega that well,but I appeal to what I'm assuming must be a rational mind. How could you keep insisting on some childish, 3rd grade point that the issue is whether ANY Republicans opposed the CRA? Clearly–beyond clearly!!–that isn't the point that Maddow and Hamsher are trying to make. To say otherwise is to doggedly remain a fool for pride's sake.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

I agree that both parties are to blame for their ill treatment of minorities in the past. I agree that some Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act.

I would have in 1964 because it was an unconstitutional extension of federal power over the states, no matter how well meaning or virtuous it may have been.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

So the claim that Republicans were against the 1964 Civil Rights Act is indeed true. Thanks.

No D-Vega, it is not true. If you're going to lie, at least try not to lie so blatantly.

Republicans such as Barry Goldwater were against parts of the Civil Rights Act. Because, and pay attention now, those parts were unconstitutional.

That wasn't her implication.

You're right, it wasn't her "implication". She blatantly admitted it.

Just admit Hamsher lied and slink away to your damp basement.
whats_up

Posted by DrEvil

2009-10-30 17:31:50

Dr. Evil you hit it on the head, they were the party of all these, they are no longer. That mantle has passed to the right.
rmiller

The FACT is that Dixiecrats could not have been an issue if all Reps voted for the CRA. But they had Republican support, because some Reps joined with the Southern Dems. That is an indisputable fact.

BOTH parties share blame in this. Stop being an idiot.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-30 16:31:41

That is correct.

And it is also true that when the shit hit the fan over the civil rights act, the southern conservatives started contemplating switching their allegiances. They went from being Democrats to being Republicans. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are the largest examples.

And since the Republican party was the party of slave liberation, switching over was a big deal. No southerner of any worth would vote for a Republican , until the Dems started supporting civil rights.

It's in the history books. And it can be confusing. Just look at it this way…if you supported Jesse Helms you voted Democrat…until he became a Republican, and then you voted that way.
http://PatriotPost.US bthewolf

Dr. Evil you hit it on the head, they were the party of all these, they are no longer. That mantle has passed to the right.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-31 00:19:11

You are WRONG and an ASSHOLE, thanks for playing, What_a_f&ckhead.
smelvertising

the southern conservatives started contemplating switching their allegiances. They went from being Democrats to being Republicans.

Ah, so the dixiecrats were, in fact, conservatives. You're not even trying.

BTW: Strom Thurmond switched positions on segregation BEFORE he switched party. One wonders if he did so because desegregation wasn't exactly welcome as a position among Democrats… considering Obama was nominated exclusively on his skin color, positions of black equiality certainly aren't welcome now.

they were the party of all these

And still are, and always will be. Collectivists hate and fear what is different, from independent thought to skin color. That's what collectivistm is all about in the first place: if all people, regardless of looks, were to think and behave (i.e. vote) the same, there wouldn't be anything different to fear and everything would be under "control". Little do they know, of course.
http://www.superdickery.com mightysamurai

They went from being Democrats to being Republicans. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are the largest examples.

Two people do not a massive switch make.

So far you idiots have provided ZERO proof of this supposed "party switch". You've managed to name a whopping two people who switched from Democrat to Republican, and that's it.

It's in the history books.

Not any history books I've ever read. Of course, that's largely because you're just making shit up.
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

About a dozen Democrats swapped over to being Republicans. Others, like sitting Klan leader Robert Byrd did not. They did so not just over race, but because they were upset at the Democratic Party's abandonment of constitutional small government ideals which they'd held to for more than a century. Ronald Reagan was one of those guys: they party left him behind.

Now there's no party which holds to those ideals, just one that wants to abandon them faster than the other.
RtWingNtCase

I wouldn't worry about the bullshit that whats_up and D-Vega are spewing. You know, if I was part of a party that stood in the schoolhouse door, I'd be ashamed too. Or if it was MY party that interned the Japanese. Or if it were MY party that had former members of the KKK as a part of it.

I just take pride in the fact that Republicans freed the slaves over democrat objections, had more vote for the CRA of 1964, etc.

D-Vega, you really should move on and think about your party's attempt to get over its racial past – it really has been remarkable to recover from such shame.
CoolCzech

Yeah, the Democrats traditionally supported first slavery, then Jim Crow, then Lynchings, then Japanese Internment, then Bull Conners, and NOW electronic lynchings of people like Judge Clarence Thomas and woman leaders like Sarah Palin.

Some things never change, in the Party of Robert KKK Byrd.
Pingback: Google

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN