Voter suppression

no, bs like what you just wrote and your list of democrats has been refuted

and it was easily done, because you don't know what you're talking about

 

The list of racist Democrats is dead accurate. Nobody refuted it at all. You do not know what you are talking about.

 

certainly i did

allen and long did a lot for black people in louisiana

 

Sure all of the racists did a lot for black people after the 1960s to promote welfare and get there votes. They did not become "non racists".

 

you don't know what you're talking about

i was there



Russell Long "I like to think I am liberal in the best definition of the word"

 

That you do not.

And that you have not, you've dodged it for weeks now.

How it is you assert they can provide ID to register but not one to vote and that to require one for the former does not discriminated but does so for the latter? Please explain the conflict in your position.

Not nearly as much as Obama's and Biden's or Harris-Perry's.

 

Those Southern Democrats lost as the Dixiecrats and went right back into the Democrat Party and were relected as Democrats and continued to hold leadership positions. When Byrd died, as a Democrat, he was the last one of them. The Southern Republicans opposed segregation and won the battle, the racist didn't suddenly jump over to the party that beat them.

 

you're ignoring reality, i addressed it in post #353

what a joke, obama graduated with honors from harvard law

 

You are historically ignorant, the segregationist were populist and remained Democrat except for a few who after the segregation battles were lost and the civil rights battle was lost had no further need for the Democrats. The shift for Democrat to Republican in the South was still long journey and had nothing to do with segregation but economic issues and foreign policy matters and other social issues. But the Populist segregationist remained Democrat until they all died off. They remained big government, pro-union, fight the big corporations and fight for the "little guy".

 

It wasn't a conservative wing it was a Populist wing and no they did not suddenly jump over to the party that had finally won the battle to desegregate the country.

No that's not what happened I happened to have lived it.

Here is someone else who did.
"“Lott is really virtually the last of the products of Richard Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’ to be in major positions of power in the Congress,” Kristol assures the Times. “With his leaving, you will have cleared out people who … have a somewhat compromised image to the country as a whole.”

Now, as a co-architect of the Nixon strategy that gave the GOP a lock on the White House for a quarter century, let me say that Kristol’s opportunism is matched only by his ignorance. Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by this writer) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

In that ’66 campaign, Nixon – who had been thanked personally by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 – endorsed all Republicans, except members of the John Birch Society.

In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for vice president. Why? Agnew had routed George (“Your home is your castle!”) Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law and order.

When the ’68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.

Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon – who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand:

* raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent;

* doubled the budget for black colleges;

* appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions
than any president, including LBJ;

* adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks
in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and
universities;

* invented “Black Capitalism” (the Office of Minority Business
Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses
from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business
loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits
in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent;

* raised the share of Southern schools that were
desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, “It has only been
since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation
has taken place in the South.”

The charge that we built our Republican coalition on race is a lie. Nixon routed the left because it had shown itself incompetent to win or end a war into which it had plunged the United States and too befuddled or cowardly to denounce the rioters burning our cities or the brats rampaging on our campuses.

Nixon led America out of a dismal decade and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide. By one estimate, he carried 18 percent of the black vote in 1972 and 25 percent in the South. No Republican has since matched that. To see Kristol colluding with the Times to rewrite that history to make liberals heroes and Republicans villains tells us more about him than about the era.

And where were the necons, when Goldwaterites and Nixonites were building the New Majority? Going all the way with LBJ."
http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-neocons-and-nixons-southern-strategy-512

 

The ignorance just abounds here, yes he did and was reelected as Governor as a Democrat.

 

The Dixiecrats and segregationist Democrats were not conservatives they were POPULISTS how many times does it have to be repeated?

 

he's probably talking about george wallace jr

 

Things sure have changed in the last 80 years. I suspect that many of the southern republicans of today would have been democrats, were they alive then. The late sixties ushered in a new era of populist democrats, who welcomed civil rights and the black vote that they hoped would come with it.

Its a completely irrelevant point in todays politics.

Give it another 80 years and positions may change again. And who gives a whoop?

 

No you dodged it there

"there's no conflict, court houses, where many people register to vote, have the ability to verify identities"

How it is you assert they can provide ID to register but not one to vote and that to require one for the former does not discriminated but does so for the latter? Please explain the conflict in your position.

So what, Palin is still not nearly as stupid as he is and Biden and Harris-Perry.

 

Reality fully supports his facts as opposed to your ignorance of the South and the history of times.

http://www.freedomsjournal.net/2011/10/22/urban-legends-the-dixiecrats-and-the-gop/

Urban Legends the Dixiecrats and the GOP

Over the years there has been a concerted effort, on behalf of many, to rewrite political history, especially when it comes to the Democrat Party. These rewrites, half-truths or urban legends misrepresent historical fact; and unfortunately have lead astray countless numbers of people through politically charged falsehoods. One such legend, which seeks to rewrite history, is that of the Dixiecrats. As the legend goes, those Dixiecrats who broke from the Democrat party in 1948 all joined the Republican Party (Click names to see the articles by Roland Martin and Clarence Page).

According to Page’s reconstruction of history, Goldwater votes against the 1964 Civil rights act; and it takes moderate republicans, led by Everett Dirksen, to ensure that the act becomes law over the obstruction of the Southern segregationists. What Page fails to mention, is that Goldwater and other conservatives supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil rights acts. He then goes on to say, “…many of those same conservative southern Democrats turned Republican. They helped form the core of the historic "Southern strategy," using racial resentments and states' rights arguments to rebuild the conservative movement after Goldwater's resounding defeat.” Unfortunately for Page, the historical record and pure logic don’t bear out this assumption.

The Dixiecrats

During the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948 a number of disgruntled southern segregationist democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1]

They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors' ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank.”[2]

Notably, this stated aim is apparent in the third plank of the Dixiecrat’s platform which states, “We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government and the police nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.”[3]

What is even more telling, and speaks directly to the incredulous nature of this urban legend, is the fact that the Dixiecrats rejected the Civil rights platforms of not one, but both parties. Republicans had always supported civil rights since their inception (see GOP party platform here). What was new is that the Democrats, led by Harry Truman, were publicly taking a stand for Civil rights (see Democrat Party Platform here). The ‘totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government”, according to the Dixiecrats, was the federal government’s enforcement of the 14thand 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. With both parties, now, standing for Civil rights the segregationist had no party to go too. Thus, they started their own with the idea of causing a stalemate, which they hoped to break, once both parties relinquished their pro-civil rights planks.

Which way did they go?

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The “old guard” gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south.[4]

Conservatives vs. Segregationists

Despite this, and other overwhelming evidence to the contrary, these same “revisionists” would have you believe that conservatives and segregationists are synonymous. This could not be further from the truth. By definition, conservatives today are what were once called “classical liberals”, which Barry Goldwater clearly was. It should be noted here, that although in his latter years Goldwater sounded more like a Libertarian;[5] “classical liberals” believe, among other things, in liberty to reach ones fullest potential, own property, start a business, vote and worship without the assistance or interference of the Federal Government.[6] [FJM has dubbed these the R.I.S.E. principles, which stands for Responsible government, Individual liberty and fidelity, Strong family values and Economic empowerment (See R.I.S.E principles)].

As a matter of historical record, conservatives (classical liberals) have always taken seriously the US Constitution’s limiting of the scope and reach of government. This includes the very nature and letter of the Bill of Rights, especially the tenth amendment.

For example, conservative ideology differs from the segregationists in that segregationist used the tenth amendment to nullify the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, as well as the Declaration of Independence.[7] An often misrepresented fact is, that Dixiecrats, not Republicans, tried to exalt states rights over the rights guaranteed to African Americans challenging the merits of the 14th amendment section one, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This amendment granted former slaves full citizenship and equal protection under the law, which segregationist tried to deny Blacks through black codes, Jim Crow, lynching and/or a rigged jury.

Additionally, the 15th amendment gave African Americans the right to vote. It states in Section 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. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Segregationists denied this right through poll taxes and intimidation (the KKK).

The truth is, that “true” conservatives would (did) not agree with the segregationist interpretation of the Constitution, especially that of the tenth amendment. Conservatives, past and present, however do believe in responsible or limited government; but certainly not at the expense of turning the Constitution on its head to do so. Conservatives hold that the Constitution limits the Federal government to the enumerated powers explicit in the document, and therefore the Fed has no power when it tries to move past its constitutional restraints. All other powers belong to the states and the people. Bottom line, a person advocating for state’s rights should be able to do so without being labeled a segregationists. For conservatives, “the rights of the people” include all races, creeds, ethnicities and colors—all U.S. citizens.

Conclusion

While the notion that Dixiecrats all became Republicans is nothing more than another in a line of dubious urban legends; it’s clear that for generations its stories have been told (and retold) to manipulate and discourage Blacks from considering the Republican Party and, or more importantly, the tenets of conservative ideas. Unfortunately, the references made to State’s Rights commonly attributed to conservative ideology are still being widely used to link conservatives with segregationists. This, too, is nothing more than urban legend. Sadly, these live on to smear and misrepresent not only our history, but also the character and reputation of men and women of principle.

 

what a joke

that reminds me of the time you tried to say there's no kkk in mississippi

there's no conflict, court houses, where many people register to vote, have the ability to verify identities

they can use utility bills, affidavits and such

that's funny

[video=youtube;NrzXLYA_e6E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E[/video]

 

Nope Sr.

 

you think you can speak for him?

 

Not to speak of.

Specious

How it is you assert they can provide ID to register but not one to vote and that to require one for the former does not discriminated but does so for the latter? Please explain the conflict in your position.

Yeah that she is fact smarter than the men the Democrats nominated and the country elected, sad but funny.

[video=youtube;EpGH02DtIws]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws[/video]

 

not at all

get a grip on reality, i didn't say that

obama looks tired and hungry in that video, not stupid

palin on the other hand, always looks stupid, because she is

 

Who cares where you were? The Southern democrats that I listed were racists and continued to be Democrats after the 1960s. You Lefties like to try to rewrite history but the fact is that voter suppression did happen back then and it happened at the hand of the Democrats. Requiring an id to vote is not voter suppression. Thinking it is ridiculous.

 

your bs has already been refuted

 

No it hasn't. You do not know what you are talking about. Voter suppression. Real voter suppression against blacks was at the hands of Democrats. These democrats stayed democrats after the 1960 repeal of the jim crow laws. The repeal happened at the hands of Conservative Republicans not Democrats.

Requiring an ID to vote is not voter suppression. To think otherwise is foolishness.

 

you've been fooled and republicans, many of whom used to be democrats, certainly are attempting to suppress voting

[video=youtube;8GBAsFwPglw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw[/video]