WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/the-gop-is-no-party-for-blacks-latinos-and-gays/2012/11/12/ebfecab2-2c73-11e2-a99d-5c4203af7b7a_blog.html

Bolding mine. For a party that wraps itself in the American flag, the Republican Party sure doesn't like what America actually is.

[Redban]

Votes they once were able to attract ...

^ Votes we were once able to attract?

 The last time Republicans were able to attract black voters, Civil War veterans were still walking on the Earth. Even Reagan and Nixon, when they winning 49 states, struggled to get 10% of the black vote.

Blacks will never vote Republican in our lifetime. These are not votes that could be ours.

[sg0508]

And that's exactly how the base of the GOP wants it.  They just don't like that they can't win that way.

[minionofmidas]

I approve of the use of the word "monochromatic" in that sentence.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1964 was the civil war?

Given that it was the Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act and put it into law, this is just hyperbole from the party of slavery. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1964 was the civil war?

Given that it was the Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act and put it into law, this is just hyperbole from the party of slavery. 

Uh...why, then ,is the white South so Republican now? You know damn well that it was a Democratic President who signed the Civil Rights Act, and that many white Southerners switched their registration after that.

[Link]

Votes they once were able to attract ...

^ Votes we were once able to attract?

 The last time Republicans were able to attract black voters, Civil War veterans were still walking on the Earth. Even Reagan and Nixon, when they winning 49 states, struggled to get 10% of the black vote.

Blacks will never vote Republican in our lifetime. These are not votes that could be ours.

An obvious lie.



The question is why would Redban make up such a lie?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Democrats are liars.

Anyways, here's the actual results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans were far more likely in 1964 to have voted for the bill than the Democrats. Ergo - the party of Slavery is trying it's very, very best to lie.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the Party of Slavery is desperately trying to cover up the truth.

[traininthedistance]

Votes they once were able to attract ...

^ Votes we were once able to attract?

 The last time Republicans were able to attract black voters, Civil War veterans were still walking on the Earth. Even Reagan and Nixon, when they winning 49 states, struggled to get 10% of the black vote.

Blacks will never vote Republican in our lifetime. These are not votes that could be ours.

A sizable number of Blacks voted Republican for Eisenhower, it was only after that the bottom fell out.  The tide started turning with the Great Migration, where the black community was introduced to the newer, Northern wing of the Democrats, which had started to grow in inner-city poor ethnic communities and was about social spending and acceptance of marginalized groups rather than racism.  (Basically, the Al Smith wing rather than the James Cox wing, if you will.  They were united in opposition to the hegemonic "mainstream" of wealthy industrialists and Yankee farmers, and that was pretty much the main thing keeping them under the same Democratic name.)  So inner-city Northern blacks were more receptive to the Democrats' economic message, and started to push for civil rights within a party that was rapidly changing for the better.  Obviously, then it took 1964 for the switch to be complete and for blacks to be so solidly Dem.  

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Democrats are liars.

Anyways, here's the actual results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans were far more likely in 1964 to have voted for the bill than the Democrats. Ergo - the party of Slavery is trying it's very, very best to lie.

Relax.  No one is denying the existence of Strom Thurmond.



We are just saying times have changed... even if he never did.

[All Along The Watchtower]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Democrats are liars.

Anyways, here's the actual results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans were far more likely in 1964 to have voted for the bill than the Democrats. Ergo - the party of Slavery is trying it's very, very best to lie.

How many times do I have to tell you: The Southern white Democrats who voted against  the bill either died off or, in many cases  like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, switched to the Republican Party?

You know that many of those Republicans who voted for the bill were Rockefeller Republicans-moderates and liberals who you far-right conservatives would never vote for. Yet you still continue to be deliberately obtuse.

[Link]

There is something interesting about this map.  You may have to squint to see it.  It is very subtle, but it's there.  Trust me.  It's there.

[DrScholl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1964 was the civil war?

Given that it was the Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act and put it into law, this is just hyperbole from the party of slavery. 

Here we go again. This is why Republicans lose, they don't get it. This isn't the past and today's Republicans don't get credit for what happened back then. You're not going to win by running around ranting that Democrats are the party of slavery and pretending that your party has no structural problems.

And for the record, zero southern Republicans voted for the civil rights act and as for the northern ones, they had a bigger number of no votes among them than northern Democrats did. Not so perfect when you look at it like that.

[traininthedistance]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the Party of Slavery is desperately trying to cover up the truth.

Probably the only Democrat left who can be considered to be a member of the "Party of Slavery" now is Joe Manchin.  Besides him, the ideological re-sorting which began with the urban Dems' nomination of Al Smith, reached its climax with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the ensuing "Southern Strategy", and mostly resolved itself in the wave of 1994, has finally come to an end.

Sorry, things have flipped completely and the Republicans are now the defenders of that odious legacy.  The Democrats abandoned it, and you folks rushed in to fill the gap.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of George Wallace (D).

[traininthedistance]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of George Wallace (D).

I have absolutely zero doubt he'd be a Republican if he was alive today.  Heck, he'd be a Republican twenty years ago.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given I supported Herman Cain, and plenty of other conservatives like me were thrilled to vote for Herman Cain in the primaries, I think it's safe to say that your narrative is long on emotion and short on facts.

Republicans have NEVER supported slavery. Not once - not ever. Democrats have always been the party of slavery - except now they are telling black people that they should abort their kids.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure that's your opinion. That and 4 bucks will get you a cup at starbucks.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Do you hope that if you lie enough people will believe you?

Show me where Republicans have EVER supported slavery in any way, shape and form. If you can't then you'll have to concede that the Republicans have NEVER supported slavery. Not once, not ever.

[DrScholl]

Let's also not forget that the Republican Party reacted to losing the re-election by saying black people and other minorities only voted for Obama so they could get free stuff.

Then there were those conservatives on social media that made racial slurs and threats, some of which got them in trouble with authorities. That doesn't sound like a happy, tolerant, colorblind party to me.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why does FDR get credit for what he did?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't Obama say he was running on revenge?

[DrScholl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why does FDR get credit for what he did?

His policies still fit somewhat with what Democrats stand for now. Besides, no one is denying how the parties were in the past, it's about the present. Republicans have race issues that are separate from things that happened over 100 years ago.

[The Mikado]

Republicans were far more likely in 1964 to have voted for the bill than the Democrats. Ergo - the party of Slavery is trying it's very, very best to lie.

You must be logged in to read this quote.