(Outside of Vietnam) Was LBJ a good President?

[LBJ Revivalist]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

It was introduced by a Democratic congressmen, by the way.
And LBJ could've vetoed it if he really wanted political gain.
And from everything I've read about him, he genuinely felt for the poor and minorities. The guy was a teacher when he was younger and taught Mexican kids who could barely speak English and he tried as hard as he could to give them a good education.

Uh, LBJ opposed civil rights throughout his career. Even when presidential aspirations caused him to flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson's primary goal was to water it down as much as possible.

Johnson was a crooked lying sociopath who didn't care about anyone but himself and his own political ambition.

Johnson's agenda, foreign and domestic, was a total failure by any reasonable measure.

He may have done that in '57 but with the '64 Act he fought tooth and nail to ensure it wasn't diluted, and was told by other Southern Democratics that it'd cost him his political career, however by then his views had changed and he fought for it's passage. He felt had Kennedy been alive it would've been watered down like the '57 bill.

People's opinions can change, and people's opinions in private and in public can contradict. Nixon created Affirmative Action for the most part and also is credited with fully desegregating schools yet in private believed blacks were ''just down from the trees.'' Politicians overall are weird people.

And I think he cared a lot about this nation, but that's just my opinion.

LBJ fought for the CRA of 64 because it's passage would add to his presidential prestige while it's defeat would have been an embarrassment. Johnson was a two-faced backstabbing bigot like Nixon; both were vile human beings.

"The Civil Rights program is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill...I have voted against the FEPC."
--Lyndon B. Johnson

Sounds more like something Goldwater or Ron Paul would say, seeing as they viewed the later Civil Rights Act as tyranny.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

"The Civil Rights program is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill...I have voted against the FEPC."[/b]
--Lyndon B. Johnson

Cite?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gq4c9XDOSxQC&pg=PA26&dq=%22Civil+Rights+program+is+a+farce+and+a+sham%22&hl=en&ei=WmMhTMqqJ8L78AbWneCfAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Civil%20Rights%20program%20is%20a%20farce%20and%20a%20sham%22&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=N3Ypq7AqtxQC&pg=PA82&dq=%22Civil+Rights+program+is+a+farce+and+a+sham%22&hl=en&ei=WmMhTMqqJ8L78AbWneCfAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Civil%20Rights%20program%20is%20a%20farce%20and%20a%20sham%22&f=false

[Sewer]

"The Civil Rights program is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill...I have voted against the FEPC."[/b]
--Lyndon B. Johnson

Cite?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gq4c9XDOSxQC&pg=PA26&dq=%22Civil+Rights+program+is+a+farce+and+a+sham%22&hl=en&ei=WmMhTMqqJ8L78AbWneCfAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22Civil%20Rights%20program%20is%20a%20farce%20and%20a%20sham%22&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=N3Ypq7AqtxQC&pg=PA82&dq=%22Civil+Rights+program+is+a+farce+and+a+sham%22&hl=en&ei=WmMhTMqqJ8L78AbWneCfAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Civil%20Rights%20program%20is%20a%20farce%20and%20a%20sham%22&f=false

Thanks.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He was a socialist who used the poor, elderly, and minorities for his own political gain. If it weren't for the GOP the civil rights bill would never have been passed.

It was introduced by a Democratic congressmen, by the way.
And LBJ could've vetoed it if he really wanted political gain.
And from everything I've read about him, he genuinely felt for the poor and minorities. The guy was a teacher when he was younger and taught Mexican kids who could barely speak English and he tried as hard as he could to give them a good education.

Uh, LBJ opposed civil rights throughout his career. Even when presidential aspirations caused him to flip-flop on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Johnson's primary goal was to water it down as much as possible.

Johnson was a crooked lying sociopath who didn't care about anyone but himself and his own political ambition.

Johnson's agenda, foreign and domestic, was a total failure by any reasonable measure.

He may have done that in '57 but with the '64 Act he fought tooth and nail to ensure it wasn't diluted, and was told by other Southern Democratics that it'd cost him his political career, however by then his views had changed and he fought for it's passage. He felt had Kennedy been alive it would've been watered down like the '57 bill.

People's opinions can change, and people's opinions in private and in public can contradict. Nixon created Affirmative Action for the most part and also is credited with fully desegregating schools yet in private believed blacks were ''just down from the trees.'' Politicians overall are weird people.

And I think he cared a lot about this nation, but that's just my opinion.

LBJ fought for the CRA of 64 because it's passage would add to his presidential prestige while it's defeat would have been an embarrassment. Johnson was a two-faced backstabbing bigot like Nixon; both were vile human beings.

"The Civil Rights program is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill...I have voted against the FEPC."
--Lyndon B. Johnson

Sounds more like something Goldwater or Ron Paul would say, seeing as they viewed the later Civil Rights Act as tyranny.

Um, no. Johnson's vitriol was directed against the most basic of civil rights protections being proposed under the Truman administration.

Barry Goldwater voted in favor of every piece of civil rights legislation prior to 1964, including the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the CRA of 1960. His objection to the 1964 act came from a principled opposition to two particular titles of that act which in his opinion went beyond the scope of the federal government.

Conservative Republican Robert A. Taft was criticized for supporting anti-lynching legislation by 'progressive' William Borah in 1936. It was Taft who in 1947 fought to prevent Mississippi Klansman Democrat Theodore Bilbo from taking his senate seat after a campaign of intimidation against black voters. It was Taft who drafted a civil rights proposal as early as 1946 and pledged the GOP to push the civil rights program in 1948, taking up the fight against poll taxes that year.

And Ron Paul supports civil rights, but was not in Congress then and has nothing to do with this.


So kindly spare me ignorant remarks like that in the future, please.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes that is a real quote from LBJ in the 1940's. He was a Senator from Texas afterall.

And indeed Goldwater had a strong record on Civil Rights prior to 1964.


The point was that even with the support Northern Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans, LBJ didn't have enough votes to pass the bill in the Senate. He had to get support from Everett Dirksen and the Conservative Taft wing of the Republican party to actually pass the bill over the fillbuster of such people that left adores today like Al Gore Sr., J William Fulbright, Sam Ervin, and Robert Byrd.

A great book to read is Bruce Bartlett's, "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Burried Past". While somewhat of hit piece on the party it is a rather accurate description of the despicableness of many of the Dixiecrats like Bilbo, Watson, Eastland, and many others as well as to highlight quotes from Robert Taft illustrating the support that both wings of the GOP Conservative and Liberal had for Civil Rights and thus the timing of the Conservative resurgence and the decline in black support is not due to the ideology of conservatism taking over the party but events of the time and unwillingess of Republicans to fight back against the left's attempts to portray them as "anti-black" and maintain a 25% to 33% voting block among black voters that they had come out out of the Depression with and lost in 1964 largely due to Goldwaters opposition to the CRA based on certain sections of the bill not the whole idea and motivation behind it and most Conservative Republicans voted Yes.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

He also was horrible period and lacked any sense of ethics. He had a win at all costs mentality. Look at the 1964 campaign which he was guarranteed to win from the start. He even went so far as to bug Goldwater's campaign headquarters, yet no Watergate scandal or anything even close. Not to mention running some of the most vicious campaign attack ads in history, all in an election in which he himself regarded as a mere speedbump along the away.

There are many similarities between Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. I am convinced that those are probably the only two presidents we've ever had who genuinely did not give a sh**t about the fate of the country and its people. True sociopaths.

Wilson? Bush? Obama?

[Derek]

He also was horrible period and lacked any sense of ethics. He had a win at all costs mentality. Look at the 1964 campaign which he was guarranteed to win from the start. He even went so far as to bug Goldwater's campaign headquarters, yet no Watergate scandal or anything even close. Not to mention running some of the most vicious campaign attack ads in history, all in an election in which he himself regarded as a mere speedbump along the away.

There are many similarities between Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. I am convinced that those are probably the only two presidents we've ever had who genuinely did not give a sh**t about the fate of the country and its people. True sociopaths.

Wilson? Bush? Obama?

I think most presidents care but have other things above that in priority.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, he was a great liar and manipulator of the press who used tactics similar to Nixon but unlike him managed to keep the press on his side and was never held accountable.


Not to mention the fact that his policies did what Slavery and Segregation never could, destroy the African American family.

He was an F on all fronts and an F- on Vietnam which he both escalated and subsequently lost for the US.

And I love that you basically say his policies were worse than segregation and slavery. Slavery did destroy families. Families were split apart at auctions and sold to different masters.  They were token on boats away from their families where many of them became sick and died Slavery dehumanized the African American people as nothing more than a possession, a thing to be bought and sold. It was a hateful, humiliating existence for them.

If you haven't read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States", you should.

Chapter 9, Page 177:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Johnson had plenty of other flaws, but these are US Presidents we're talking about, so I might rank him 3rd, after FDR and Lincoln.

[Free Palestine]

No, not at all.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No, he was a great liar and manipulator of the press who used tactics similar to Nixon but unlike him managed to keep the press on his side and was never held accountable.


Not to mention the fact that his policies did what Slavery and Segregation never could, destroy the African American family.

He was an F on all fronts and an F- on Vietnam which he both escalated and subsequently lost for the US.

And I love that you basically say his policies were worse than segregation and slavery. Slavery did destroy families. Families were split apart at auctions and sold to different masters.  They were token on boats away from their families where many of them became sick and died Slavery dehumanized the African American people as nothing more than a possession, a thing to be bought and sold. It was a hateful, humiliating existence for them.

If you haven't read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States", you should.

Chapter 9, Page 177:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This point cannot be emphasized enough. Slavery & segregation were truly abhorrent institutions, but it was the Great Society that destroyed the American inner city.

[Derek]

He was a snake who took advantage of blacks and the poor. He was a hand out politician who knew how to manipulate as was Lincoln. Things like this led him to not even be nominated in 1968. As for Vietnam, we should have won by the time he was out of office with no excuses. Again, that's another political strategy of his.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

it was the Great Society that destroyed the American inner city.

This forum is funny sometimes.

[J. J.]

No, most of his domestic policy is now seen as an expensive failure.

[Vepres]

Horrible President. His policies destroyed many families, particularly black ones, and led to urban decay. We still feel the negative effects of his policies today, despite many having been repealed or changed.

[Vepres]

it was the Great Society that destroyed the American inner city.

This forum is funny sometimes.

con·ceit·ed
–adjective
1. having an excessively favorable opinion of one's abilities, appearance, etc.

[Bo]

Horrible President. His policies destroyed many families, particularly black ones, and led to urban decay. We still feel the negative effects of his policies today, despite many having been repealed or changed.

If many blacks wanted to divorce in the post-Civil Rights era, why shouldn't they have been able to? Besides, didn't the divorce rate for all races/ethnicities go up in the 1960s/1970s, not just for blacks?

[Derek]

Horrible President. His policies destroyed many families, particularly black ones, and led to urban decay. We still feel the negative effects of his policies today, despite many having been repealed or changed.

If many blacks wanted to divorce in the post-Civil Rights era, why shouldn't they have been able to? Besides, didn't the divorce rate for all races/ethnicities go up in the 1960s/1970s, not just for blacks?

It went up along with the number of people born out of wedlock.