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

[Oldiesfreak1854]

OK, here's the link, for real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

That doesn't disprove the fact that Atwater was on tape, saying the exact quote that you stated that he never made.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't Obama say he was running on revenge?

No, ftr.

[Wisconsin+17]

He said the best revenge was voting. Revenge against whom? Evil Republicans? Racists?

[Zioneer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, he did.

He said you should vote out of revenge.

Bullcrap, and you know it. He was paraphrasing "living well is the best revenge" by saying that voting for him was basically a way to express dissatisfaction with current politicians.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the way to kick out existing politicians, you vote to re-elect him. I see.

Revenge against whom, Zioneer? Does Obama have some kind of grudge against the Tastee-Freez Man? What?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fact that there's no obvious answer to that question should be the first big, fat, glow-in-the-dark red flag that it was a botched paraphrase of a cliched proverb and reading more into it is stupid. That or it's a conspiracy of some kind.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It's weird, I no longer view elections as Republicans versus Democrats, or conservatives versus liberals. No, instead I see it as people who welcome progress versus those who struggle to hold it back at any cost even as it applies to bias against women and minorities.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough liberals are at a loss to explain it.

[old timey villain]

I love that the Romney campaign tried desperately to attempt to take a few Obama quotes wildly out of context in hopes that people would forget about Romney's gaffes that didn't even need to be taken out of context to be offensive.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oddly enough liberals are at a loss to explain it.

All right, you give me a shot, then.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So I didn't read the whole thread, but has Ben Kenobi become like Oldiesfreak with the whole freaking out over the parties' positions five decades to over a century ago and acting like this in any way even remotely relevant today?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So I didn't read the whole thread, but has Ben Kenobi become like Oldiesfreak with the whole freaking out over the parties' positions five decades to over a century ago and acting like this in any way even remotely relevant today?

Why does the history only matter if it's pro-Democrat or anti-Republican?  Imagine for a moment that it was Republicans, rather than Democrats, who supported slavery and segregation (most leading Democrats already do, but still...).  If you knew about it, would you want to support the Republican Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If not, then why do you give Democrats a pass for supporting those things and ignore the fact that some very brave Republicans fought and even died for over a century to end those horrors?  If you can't explain, then you understand just one reason why I am a Republican.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good company, sir. Good company.

[Simfan34]

Count me down as member of the party of Dr. Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglass, and Booker T. Washington, not that of Jim Crow, secession, and the South.

[Oakvale]

Count me down as member of the party of Dr. Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglass, and Booker T. Washington, not that of Jim Crow, secession, and the South.

Channeling Oldiesfreak?

Plus, hasn't the "MLK was a Republican, so the Republican Party is therefore not at all racist " meme been thoroughly debunked?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His son also adds a very pertinent point -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DrScholl]

Count me down as member of the party of Dr. Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglass, and Booker T. Washington, not that of Jim Crow, secession, and the South.

All of those people would have been Democrats in the modern era. On the other hand, under today's right-wing logic, getting rid of Jim Crow would be viewed big government and socialism, you know since socialism is a word for everything bad in the world. Your argument doesn't work.

[MrMittens]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

[Franzl]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

They do still use it. Have a look at some of Mitt Romney's statements.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

They do still use it. Have a look at some of Mitt Romney's statements.

Didn't you read my links?  The Southern strategy had nothing to do with race.  It was about convincing Southern moderates who supported civil rights to fight against the segregationist Democrats by voting Republican.  And it's not ludicrous to point this stuff out.  If Republicans had been the party of slavery and segregation (as many high profile Democrats already suggest in their alternate history), no matter how long ago it was, would you want to support the GOP today?

And if Romney was really using racist "dog whistles", then surely you would have heard more controversy over it in this day and age.

[MrMittens]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

They do still use it. Have a look at some of Mitt Romney's statements.

They don't employ the southern strategy anymore since there's not the need. It's just low ranking GOP'ers doing things like that. In fact the whole 'southern' strategy thing is overly hyped, since you could well have called many of the ingredients to the southern strategy the 'Ohio Blue Collar Workers Strategy' or the 'North-Eastern Concerned about Busing Parents Strategy' or even the 'California Suburbanite Strategy'. The place of the south, whilst important, has been massively blown up to block out all other elements of the strategy.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

They do still use it. Have a look at some of Mitt Romney's statements.

They don't employ the southern strategy anymore since there's not the need. It's just low ranking GOP'ers doing things like that. In fact the whole 'southern' strategy thing is overly hyped, since you could well have called many of the ingredients to the southern strategy the 'Ohio Blue Collar Workers Strategy' or the 'North-Eastern Concerned about Busing Parents Strategy' or even the 'California Suburbanite Strategy'. The place of the south, whilst important, has been massively blown up to block out all other elements of the strategy.

The Southern strategy had nothing to do with pandering to racists.

[MrMittens]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

They do still use it. Have a look at some of Mitt Romney's statements.

They don't employ the southern strategy anymore since there's not the need. It's just low ranking GOP'ers doing things like that. In fact the whole 'southern' strategy thing is overly hyped, since you could well have called many of the ingredients to the southern strategy the 'Ohio Blue Collar Workers Strategy' or the 'North-Eastern Concerned about Busing Parents Strategy' or even the 'California Suburbanite Strategy'. The place of the south, whilst important, has been massively blown up to block out all other elements of the strategy.

The Southern strategy had nothing to do with pandering to racists.

Come on you have to accept that the GOP did attract racist voters in the 1960's and 1970's through the southern strategy, although I think despite leftie wailing about it a lot of it was simple common sense.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So I didn't read the whole thread, but has Ben Kenobi become like Oldiesfreak with the whole freaking out over the parties' positions five decades to over a century ago and acting like this in any way even remotely relevant today?

Why does the history only matter if it's pro-Democrat or anti-Republican?  Imagine for a moment that it was Republicans, rather than Democrats, who supported slavery and segregation (most leading Democrats already do, but still...).  If you knew about it, would you want to support the Republican Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If not, then why do you give Democrats a pass for supporting those things and ignore the fact that some very brave Republicans fought and even died for over a century to end those horrors?  If you can't explain, then you understand just one reason why I am a Republican.

If that were the case I wouldn't support the Republicans because I do not agree with their CURRENT policies and what they did over a century ago would have absolutely no relevance whatsoever in my decision to support them. I don't oppose the Republicans because Joe McCarthy was a Republican and if anyone said anything of the like I would find that absurd. So yes I give the Republicans a pass for McCarthy and would for slavery if they were the party of that. I also give them a pass for William McKinley's brutal imperialism. Political parties should be judged by absolutely nothing other than their CURRENT platforms and what they stand for.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Count me down as member of the party of Dr. Martin Luther King, Fredrick Douglass, and Booker T. Washington, not that of Jim Crow, secession, and the South.

Obama is white you see.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Southern strategy had nothing to do with pandering to racists.

It had everything to do with that; it was that.