Biden: Romney will "put ya'll back in chains"

[Politico]

Sad to say, Biden is losing it.  He's 70 years old and looks it.  His hair plugs are gone.

Looks like he sometimes wears that godawful carrot coloring, too.

Biden is as washed-up as they come. Ryan is going to look infinitely more attractive to the nonpartisan voter. Even Obama looks old and stale compared to Ryan, which has positive spillover effects for Romney.

[minionofmidas]

Why does he say "ya'll". He's from Scranton.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I checked it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights act.

What exactly have Democrats ever done for African Americans?

Wait, Lyndon Johnson was a Republican?

Todays Dem and GOP parties are not the parties they were 45 years ago. The Dixie-crats who opposed the CRA moved to the GOP, that was the whole point of the "Southern Strategy." As for the Rockefeller Republicans who supported it, well they are what is called RINOs today.

No.  The vast majority of segregationist Democrats did not become Republicans.  The only one who did was Strom Thurmond.  Former Klansman Robert Byrd of WV was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fomer segregationist Fritz Hollings of SC was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  As for the Southern strategy wa actually an attempt to convince Southern moderates who supported civil rights to vote Republican as a protest againat the segregationist Democrats.  Check it our for yourself:

 http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-neocons-and-nixons-southern-strategy-512
 http://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=m8pwv04xb#/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

That's not the same Republican Party as the one now. Stop twisting history.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I checked it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights act.

What exactly have Democrats ever done for African Americans?

Wait, Lyndon Johnson was a Republican?

I believe he's referring to the many Republicans in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act. You know, those dreaded "RINO" moderates.

Barry Goldwater and other conservatives like the Southern Democrats didn't vote for it, of course.

LBJ was only able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the overwhelming Republican support it received, including from Senate Minorty Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois).  And even then, Johnson was a racist who had opppsed civil rights prior to becoming president, including the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.  He only supported he 1964 CRA because the public supported it.  When Goldwater opposed it, he did it because he felt it was a states' issue, not because he was a racist.  In fact, Goldwater was a founding member of the NAACP in Arizona and had been instrumental in making his family's department stores in Phoenix some of the first businesses in the state to desegregate.  Meanwhile, shortly after s/gning the 1964 CRA,  Johnson told a group of Southern governors, "I'll have those nig**rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."  To claim that "conservatives like he Southern Democrats" opposed it is misleading too, because not all Southern Democrats were segregationists, and since the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" change over time, so what may have been deemed as politically conservative or liberal uen may be different from what it would be now.

[Rhodie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I checked it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights act.

What exactly have Democrats ever done for African Americans?

Wait, Lyndon Johnson was a Republican?

Todays Dem and GOP parties are not the parties they were 45 years ago. The Dixie-crats who opposed the CRA moved to the GOP, that was the whole point of the "Southern Strategy." As for the Rockefeller Republicans who supported it, well they are what is called RINOs today.

No.  The vast majority of segregationist Democrats did not become Republicans.  The only one who did was Strom Thurmond.  Former Klansman Robert Byrd of WV was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fomer segregationist Fritz Hollings of SC was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  As for the Southern strategy wa actually an attempt to convince Southern moderates who supported civil rights to vote Republican as a protest againat the segregationist Democrats.  Check it our for yourself:

 http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-neocons-and-nixons-southern-strategy-512
 http://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=m8pwv04xb#/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

That's not the same Republican Party as the one now. Stop twisting history.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I checked it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights act.

What exactly have Democrats ever done for African Americans?

Wait, Lyndon Johnson was a Republican?

I believe he's referring to the many Republicans in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act. You know, those dreaded "RINO" moderates.

Barry Goldwater and other conservatives like the Southern Democrats didn't vote for it, of course.

LBJ was only able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the overwhelming Republican support it received, including from Senate Minorty Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois).  And even then, Johnson was a racist who had opppsed civil rights prior to becoming president, including the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.  He only supported he 1964 CRA because the public supported it.  When Goldwater opposed it, he did it because he felt it was a states' issue, not because he was a racist.  In fact, Goldwater was a founding member of the NAACP in Arizona and had been instrumental in making his family's department stores in Phoenix some of the first businesses in the state to desegregate.  Meanwhile, shortly after s/gning the 1964 CRA,  Johnson told a group of Southern governors, "I'll have those nig**rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."  To claim that "conservatives like he Southern Democrats" opposed it is misleading too, because not all Southern Democrats were segregationists, and since the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" change over time, so what may have been deemed as politically conservative or liberal uen may be different from what it would be now.

But the point with Byrd and Hollings is that they changed. The Southern Strategy was also, at its core, playing on the racial fears of many Southern Democrats over Democratic positions on race. Also, I don't think Johnson was a racist, but in the 50's he had to be pragmatic to avoid losing the southern wing of the party. But other bits of your answer are very good, IMO.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

shutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutup

[Rhodie]

Me? (Mock offended)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right. I studied LBJ in a class I took in school, and he was no civil rights trailblazer. He signed it because the public wanted it, and the bill passed with overwhelming Republican support and declared the Democrats would have the "negro" vote for generations to come.

That said, most of the racist Democrats switched parties, so today's GOP isn't the same as yesterdays, but the Democrats still want to keep the black man down, remind them they are at a disadvantage, etc... and those type of things will never end racism in this country. Of course Biden was playing the race card here, but it's what I have come to expect from Obama. They must divide and conquer. It's like the GOP using gay marriage/abortion in the past. It's politics, but I wish it wasn't that way because we have bigger fish to fry than that.

[Brittain33]

The octogenarians and nonagenerians you mentioned made their peace with integration and changed their views; the others died out in the '80s. It's same way that some liberal Republicans have hung on in the north, many of them moderating on issues like abortion where the party now has a solid viewpoint.

Why did Thurmond switch to the Republicans if it was the exact opposite direction he should have gone in?

[Keystone Phil]

Why does he say "ya'll". He's from Scranton.

Joe loves feeding into stereotypes when trying to make a "point." (See: Biden comments on Indians and Dunkin Donuts)

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The octogenarians and nonagenerians you mentioned made their peace with integration and changed their views; the others died out in the '80s. It's same way that some liberal Republicans have hung on in the north, many of them moderating on issues like abortion where the party now has a solid viewpoint.

Why did Thurmond switch to the Republicans if it was the exact opposite direction he should have gone in?

I assume he switched like many of the others because of the civil rights bill LBJ signed. Granted, it made no sense given it was the GOP that helped pass the bill with overwhelming support, but they were not always the most rational people.

That said, everyone knows Strom was no racist with that black child he fathered..

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I checked it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights act.

What exactly have Democrats ever done for African Americans?

Wait, Lyndon Johnson was a Republican?

Todays Dem and GOP parties are not the parties they were 45 years ago. The Dixie-crats who opposed the CRA moved to the GOP, that was the whole point of the "Southern Strategy." As for the Rockefeller Republicans who supported it, well they are what is called RINOs today.

No.  The vast majority of segregationist Democrats did not become Republicans.  The only one who did was Strom Thurmond.  Former Klansman Robert Byrd of WV was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fomer segregationist Fritz Hollings of SC was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  As for the Southern strategy wa actually an attempt to convince Southern moderates who supported civil rights to vote Republican as a protest againat the segregationist Democrats.  Check it our for yourself:

 http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-neocons-and-nixons-southern-strategy-512
 http://m.youtube.com/?reload=7&rdm=m8pwv04xb#/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

That's not the same Republican Party as the one now. Stop twisting history.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Last I checked it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights act.

What exactly have Democrats ever done for African Americans?

Wait, Lyndon Johnson was a Republican?

I believe he's referring to the many Republicans in Congress who voted for the Civil Rights Act. You know, those dreaded "RINO" moderates.

Barry Goldwater and other conservatives like the Southern Democrats didn't vote for it, of course.

LBJ was only able to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the overwhelming Republican support it received, including from Senate Minorty Leader Everett Dirksen (R-Illinois).  And even then, Johnson was a racist who had opppsed civil rights prior to becoming president, including the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts.  He only supported he 1964 CRA because the public supported it.  When Goldwater opposed it, he did it because he felt it was a states' issue, not because he was a racist.  In fact, Goldwater was a founding member of the NAACP in Arizona and had been instrumental in making his family's department stores in Phoenix some of the first businesses in the state to desegregate.  Meanwhile, shortly after s/gning the 1964 CRA,  Johnson told a group of Southern governors, "I'll have those nig**rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."  To claim that "conservatives like he Southern Democrats" opposed it is misleading too, because not all Southern Democrats were segregationists, and since the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" change over time, so what may have been deemed as politically conservative or liberal uen may be different from what it would be now.

But the point with Byrd and Hollings is that they changed. The Southern Strategy was also, at its core, playing on the racial fears of many Southern Democrats over Democratic positions on race. Also, I don't think Johnson was a racist, but in the 50's he had to be pragmatic to avoid losing the southern wing of the party. But other bits of your answer are very good, IMO.

Right. I studied LBJ in a class I took in school, and he was no civil rights trailblazer. He signed it because the public wanted it, and the bill passed with overwhelming Republican support and declared the Democrats would have the "negro" vote for generations to come.

That said, most of the racist Democrats switched parties, so today's GOP isn't the same as yesterdays, but the Democrats still want to keep the black man down, remind them they are at a disadvantage, etc... and those type of things will never end racism in this country. Of course Biden was playing the race card here, but it's what I have come to expect from Obama. They must divide and conquer. It's like the GOP using gay marriage/abortion in the past. It's politics, but I wish it wasn't that way because we have bigger fish to fry than that.

The octogenarians and nonagenerians you mentioned made their peace with integration and changed their views; the others died out in the '80s. It's same way that some liberal Republicans have hung on in the north, many of them moderating on issues like abortion where the party now has a solid viewpoint.

Why did Thurmond switch to the Republicans if it was the exact opposite direction he should have gone in?

I assume he switched like many of the others because of the civil rights bill LBJ signed. Granted, it made no sense given it was the GOP that helped pass the bill with overwhelming support, but they were not always the most rational people.

That said, everyone knows Strom was no racist with that black child he fathered..

George Wallace had a change of heart too, and he never became a Republican.  But Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, George Mahoney, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Herman Talmadge, Orval Faubus, and the others all stayed Democrats for their entire political careers (and showed no sings to my knowledge of ever changing their views).  And I don't think they ever really changed their views on race much.  In 1993, Fritz Hollings made a comment about African potentates at the Law of the Sea Conference "getting a good square meal in Geneva" instead of "eating each other".  In 2001, Robert Byrd repeatedly used the term "white nig**r" in an interview on Fox News.
Most of the Southern Democrats who did become Republicans were not segregationists and didn't do so until the 80s and 90s, and those that did it earlier than that did it for reasons that had little to do with race.  And about the Southern Strategy: did you even check the links I posted?  It would have made no sense for Nixon to go after white racists in 1968 because most of them were already supporting Wallace. 
As for Thurmond fathering a black child, I've heard about that before, but was it ever proven?

[Likely Voter]

It's Occam's razor. Before civil rights era southern whites were overwhelmingly Democratic, Now they are overwhelmingly GOP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Today's GOP is nothing like the GOP of the 1950s and early 60s. Same is true of the Dems. You simply can't wrap yourself in the flag of the former GOP.

that being said, cleary what Biden says was racist dog-whistle. As was the Romney reply full of references of "Angry" and "hate" (as in the proverbial 'angry black man'). Same is true of Romney's constant use of the term 'foreign' to describe Obama.

[Vosem]

As for Thurmond fathering a black child, I've heard about that before, but was it ever proven?

Yeah; he payed for her education. It was kept a secret until after his death so as not to jeopardize his political career, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essie_Mae_Washington-Williams

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yawn. It gets tiresome.

What exactly has the democrat party done for the black man? Have they done anything at all?

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yawn. It gets tiresome.

What exactly has the democrat party done for the black man? Have they done anything at all?

Should it even matter? According to conservative talking points, aren't we supposed to be focused on the greater society at-large, as opposed to specific factions? After all, isn't the opposite at the core of why White America hates the Democratic Party so much? You know, because "we give them everything"? Can't have it both ways.

[Wisconsin+17]

[qquote]Should it even matter? According to conservative talking points, aren't we supposed to be focused on the greater society at-large, as opposed to specific factions? After all, isn't the opposite at the core of why White America hates the Democratic Party so much? You know, because "we give them everything"? Can't have it both ways. [/quote]

Only if one believes that the Democrats have the best interests of black people in mind. They don't, that's the problem.

Obama's policies have put more black men out of work than at any time since the Great Depression. Would it not be safe to say that the Democrats really don't like black people all that much?

[Adam Griffin]

Only if one believes that the Democrats have the best interests of black people in mind. They don't, that's the problem.

Only individuals or organizations - bound together by the significance of their own cause - can have their own best interests in mind. Parties - in particular the big tent Democratic Party - cannot be tasked with handling the sole interests of any one group of people and expect to have the desired result. With that being said, I believe the modern Democratic Party has provided more opportunity for African-Americans to achieve those results than the modern Republican Party.

Obama's policies have put more black men out of work than at any time since the Great Depression. Would it not be safe to say that the Democrats really don't like black people all that much?

I don't agree with your premise, but for argument's sake, Obama's policies have put more white men out of work than at any time since the Great Depression, along with black men, white women, black women, etc. The fundamentals of this impacted everyone, and obviously impacted those who were already hurting disproportionately.

We could also discuss how the Republicans' policies of cutting government assistance would put more already-hurting African-Americans out of shelter and food, but that's not convenient to discuss in this context, I suppose.

[patrick1]

Another classic Biden gaffe.  The party that tried to keep blacks in chains accusing the party that unchained them of trying to put Americans "back in chains."

Yeah, talk about ingrates with this "what have you done for me lately" attitude.  I mean it was only a 150 years ago.

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

Even if this were 100% true it is goddamned irrelevant.  All of these people are dead. Where are all the Republicans trying to claim the mantle of Lincoln's protectionist policies.  It is a holllow and ridiculous talking point. 

Your last sentence appears to be the same more of the same wedge rhetoric that the party has used for decades to scare/piss off working class white people. Mind you the party hasn't done anything for them either. 

[Vosem]

Another classic Biden gaffe.  The party that tried to keep blacks in chains accusing the party that unchained them of trying to put Americans "back in chains."

Yeah, talk about ingrates with this "what have you done for me lately" attitude.  I mean it was only a 150 years ago.

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

Even if this were 100% true it is goddamned irrelevant.  All of these people are dead. Where are all the Republicans trying to claim the mantle of Lincoln's protectionist policies.  It is a holllow and ridiculous talking point. 

Your last sentence appears to be the same more of the same wedge rhetoric that the party has used for decades to scare/piss off working class white people. Mind you the party hasn't done anything for them either. 

It was, I'll remind you, the Republican Party that ended slavery and advocated civil rights. Saying 'modern members of the Republican Party' haven't done anything for blacks is a defensible position; saying 'the Republican Party' hasn't is not.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Another classic Biden gaffe.  The party that tried to keep blacks in chains accusing the party that unchained them of trying to put Americans "back in chains."

Yeah, talk about ingrates with this "what have you done for me lately" attitude.  I mean it was only a 150 years ago.

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

Even if this were 100% true it is goddamned irrelevant.  All of these people are dead. Where are all the Republicans trying to claim the mantle of Lincoln's protectionist policies.  It is a holllow and ridiculous talking point. 

Your last sentence appears to be the same more of the same wedge rhetoric that the party has used for decades to scare/piss off working class white people. Mind you the party hasn't done anything for them either. 

It was, I'll remind you, the Republican Party that ended slavery and advocated civil rights. Saying 'modern members of the Republican Party' haven't done anything for blacks is a defensible position; saying 'the Republican Party' hasn't is not.

*facepalm*

[Vosem]

Another classic Biden gaffe.  The party that tried to keep blacks in chains accusing the party that unchained them of trying to put Americans "back in chains."

Yeah, talk about ingrates with this "what have you done for me lately" attitude.  I mean it was only a 150 years ago.

Yeah, but for over 100 years after the Civil War, Democrats oppressed blacks by fighting against bans on lynching, racial segregation, and protecting blacks against the KKK.  Republicans consistently fought for freedom for blacks and continue to do so by encouraging work to make them independent of government assistance.

Even if this were 100% true it is goddamned irrelevant.  All of these people are dead. Where are all the Republicans trying to claim the mantle of Lincoln's protectionist policies.  It is a holllow and ridiculous talking point. 

Your last sentence appears to be the same more of the same wedge rhetoric that the party has used for decades to scare/piss off working class white people. Mind you the party hasn't done anything for them either. 

It was, I'll remind you, the Republican Party that ended slavery and advocated civil rights. Saying 'modern members of the Republican Party' haven't done anything for blacks is a defensible position; saying 'the Republican Party' hasn't is not.

*facepalm*

What can I say, I'm a Grammar Nazi

[opebo]

I really don't see what was "dangerous" about what Joe Biden said here.

Let's see: the Republican party is frequently labeled as racist and feudal and the sitting President is a black Democrat. Comments like this one stoke racial fears or a class war. Take your pick.

But those are good things, KP.   

[PittsburghSean]

This gaffe has more of the 'stupid' than 'offensive' in it and will therefore probably not have much effect.

That's exactly what I was going to say! I thought he made a reckless comment, but not an offensive one. Romney's just taking the comment out of context to make it as something racial. That said, Biden has had some racial problems before. I have always liked Biden though. I like him more than Obama even though polls have it the other way around. I guess I like the rough and tumble politics Biden brings to the table.

[pepper11]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/15/former-obama-campaign-co-chair-bidens-remarks-racial-viciousness/

Artur Davis, African American former Obama co-chair, deriding Biden's racial viciousness.

The smackdown has been laid.

[All Along The Watchtower]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE KILL THIS THREAD!