DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on April 22, 2010, 03:52:12 PM
-
Why? Thinking of all the keyboard pounding I wasted arguing with BT and others over the Southern Strategy of the GOP and its anti-black racism. What was the reaction I got? Simple. Deny, deny, deny. How could anyone deny the obvious staring them right in the face? Easy. They just did.
Well, it doesn't have to be argued any more. Guess who says exactly what I've been saying about the racist GOP and the Southern Strategy?
MICHAEL STEELE, that's who!!! The chairman of the RNC. Geeze, what a surprise. Sometimes life is even funnier than comedy. Who woulda thunk?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/michael-steele-for-decade_n_547702.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/michael-steele-for-decade_n_547702.html)
-
How could anyone deny the obvious staring them right in the face?
I'd ask you that, if you weren't ignoring me so you could deny the obvious without having to say anything.
-
Now that was a Ha ha ha ;D
-
What Steele copped to was the existence of a Southern Strategy. You are the one who characterized it as racist.
During his remarks he also acknowledged that for decades the GOP pursued "'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South."
The question that needs to be asked is why go after the white male vote?
-
I fail to understand how you arrived at your conclusions, based on the link you provided. But if it brought you to laughter then good for you. Laughing is better than to being grumpy and angry all the time. I wish your friends Obama, Reid and Pelosi were less angry, hateful, vengeful, controlling, conspiring, deceitful and more jovial.
-
<<What Steele copped to was the existence of a Southern Strategy. You are the one who characterized it as racist.
<<During his remarks he also acknowledged that for decades the GOP pursued "'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South.">>
It's a strategy designed to go after the white male vote, and you want to know why that's racist?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
-
It's a strategy designed to go after the white male vote, and you want to know why that's racist?
Yes.
Would going after the female vote be considered sexist?
-
<<Would going after the female vote be considered sexist?>>
If the female vote you were chasing was anti-male sexist, yes it would.
-
And if there was no proof that the white femal vote was not anti-male then it wouldn't?
Do you consider Jimmy Carter to be racist?
-
<<And if there was no proof that the white femal vote was not anti-male then it wouldn't?>>
It would then depend on what was being offered to the white female voter that would not attract any of the other demographics. It's very hard, almost impossible, to see how this could NOT be racist.
<<Do you consider Jimmy Carter to be racist?>>
I dunno, he seems like a pretty good guy. Decent and fair-minded. Can't see the guy being in a Georgia lynch mob. I just don't know all that much about Jimmy Carter, so I'd be betting blind, but it's a better blind bet to bet on him not being a racist. Carter just never seemed all that interesting to read about. I've read up on LBJ, JFK and FDR. Those guys were very interesting, FDR in particular. I even wanted to read up on Nixon but never found the time. But Jimmy Carter? I don't know, something there just . . . I won't say he's boring exactly, because he DID get to be President of the U.S.A., just that there are some characters who sound a lot more interesting that I still need to read about. I don't think he's a racist, but really WTF do I know?
-
How about Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Phil Bredesen all white males in the South. Racist?
-
<<How about Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Phil Bredesen all white males in the South. Racist?>>
I never heard of Phil Bredesen.
If you'd asked me about Gore and Clinton a year ago, I'd probably have said, no. But after Clinton's remark that a few years ago, Obama would have been getting coffee for them - - that's out-rucking-fageous. That really shocked me. I was very very disappointed in Clinton. I never liked that bitch Hillary, but one thing I'll bet on and that's that she never would have said anything like that, ever. Never woulda thought it. But she's not from the South, she's from Scranton, PA, I believe.
-
I never liked that bitch Hillary, but one thing I'll bet on and that's that she never would have said anything like that, ever.
Hillary has a thing about Jews. Per Dick Morris.
-
<<Hillary has a thing about Jews. Per Dick Morris. >>
Morris is an ass-hole. Lied to his own wife for years. Not necessarily a liar, but it's possible he's got his own scores to settle with Hillary and this is all part of it. I don't give a shit about mildly anti-Semitic attitudes. Either they can't help absorbing it from the culture and/or some Jews contribute to the "thing" by their own actions. For a lot of people it's unavoidable - - it doesn't mean they're bad people, just a little bit limited in their perspectives. Hillary's a competitor in a very rough field where a lot of the other players are Jewish and it obviously gets abrasive at times. Maybe a more saintly person than she wouldn't develop a "thing about Jews," but it's certainly understandable to personalize the conflicts and maybe generalize from some bad individual experiences. I mean holy shit Louis Farrakhan has "a thing about Jews," and so does the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom I admire anyway. At least Hillary keeps a lid on hers.
-
At least Hillary keeps a lid on hers.
Does that mean anti-Semiticism is OK as long as it is not always acted upon?
Would not the same apply to racism?
or is anti-Semiticism the lesser sin?
-
<<Does that mean anti-Semiticism is OK as long as it is not always acted upon?>>
I mean that it's unavoidable. Obviously the world would be a better place without it, but what's the point of getting all bent out of shape about something that's always gonna be with us? Of course it can't be permissible to act upon it, in anything but a purely social context.
<<Would not the same apply to racism?>>
Anti-Semitism IS racism. It's racism directed at a particular target.
<<or is anti-Semiticism the lesser sin?>>
Same thing.
-
Then can you explain why you are willing to give Hillary a pass but not someone like Trent Lott.
-
D'OH
-
<<Then can you explain why you are willing to give Hillary a pass but not someone like Trent Lott.>>
Easy. The blacks are still suffering the effects of racism and slavery. They've got a long way to go before they pull themselves out of the shit-hole that Whitey dug for them. It's despicable to kick them in the teeth as they're still trying to clamber up out of American racist hell.
The Jews don't give a shit. Hillary doesn't like us? Too fucking bad. Some of us don't like her either. Whaddaya gonna do?
Besides, I don't even know that Hillary DOES have a thing about Jews. The only evidence of it that I've seen is Dick Morris, and it's about as non-specific and vague as you can get. Could be everything and could be nothing. In view of all the good causes she worked for in her lifetime, it's kind of hard to envisage her as a Nazi bitch in SS uniform. Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond, who opposed federal anti-lynching legislation. From "having a thing" to professing admiration for the protection of lynch mobs? No-brainer.
-
Sometime during the seventies, Thurmond moderated his views on race. He was the first southerner to hire a black staffer. He also supported the Martin Luther King holiday.
Some racist.
http://www.examiner.com/x-24794-American-History-Examiner~y2010m1d14-Strom-Thurmond (http://www.examiner.com/x-24794-American-History-Examiner~y2010m1d14-Strom-Thurmond)
-
<<Sometime during the seventies, Thurmond moderated his views on race. He was the first southerner to hire a black staffer. He also supported the Martin Luther King holiday.>>
Sometime during the forties, Albert Speer moderated his views on race. He courageously denounced Adolf Hitler and all the evil things he said and did. He was the first Nazi war criminal to tell his story to a Jewish journalist, Gitta Serenyi. He also supported the State of Israel.
<<Some racist.>>
Do you have ANY IDEA how fucking STUPID your defence of Strom Thurmond looks? I mean the average 12-year-old could not possibly be taken in by this ludicrous play-acting, which you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. I assume you have never heard of setting your sails to the prevailing winds.
Besides which, when Lott regretted Strom's failure to win the Presidency, he was referring to Strom the Dixiecrat, not Stom the hirer of token blacks, Strom the "moderate."
-
Do you have ANY IDEA how fucking STUPID your defence of Strom Thurmond looks? I mean the average 12-year-old could not possibly be taken in by this ludicrous play-acting, which you seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. I assume you have never heard of setting your sails to the prevailing winds.
Fuck you.
Now that we have that out of the way, i guess you have never heard of evolving views.
Al Gore had them when he was against abortion before he was for it.
And that seems to be OK with you lefties.
-
<<Now that we have that out of the way, i guess you have never heard of evolving views.>>
Sure I have. Look at how fast Albert Speer's views evolved once he figured out that Hitler was not going to rise from the dead.
<<Al Gore had them when he was against abortion before he was for it.>>
Yeah, his views evolved just like Albert Speer's and Strom Thurmond's. Hey, I think evolution is beautiful.
<<And that seems to be OK with you lefties.>>
Wasn't OK with THIS leftie. I didn't buy into Speer's "evolution" any more than I did into Thurmond's or any more than I do into Gore's. I might not be the brightest bulb in the marquee, but I've got enough common sense and understanding of the real world to know hypocrisy and opportunism when I see them. Just how fucking dumb do you really think I am?
-
Just how fucking dumb do you really think I am?
Not dumb but very judgmental and rigid.
-
Look, BT, I've been around. And while I'm perfectly willing to cut a break for some underprivileged ghetto youth who's spent his entire formative years on the shitty end of the stick and never really had a chance, I DO NOT place a Nazi war criminal, the son of a well-to-do professional couple and a certified architect, or Albert Gore, the son and grandson of senators, to be in that same category. They had every opportunity and yet they chose freely to follow dishonourable paths, in Speer's case, a path which his own father knew to be wrong. Thurmond was as bad as any of them, his protection of lynch mobs by attempting to shield them from the course of justice was nothing more than open incitement, and he did not grow up in poverty or disadvantaged, at the shitty end of any stick.
Soft-hearted liberal tolerance of these examples of pure evil (or in Gore's case, of sordid hypocrisy) is a curse on the values of a nation and one reason for the current abominable state of national morality, where the prosecution of torturers (a treaty obligation!) is waived by a law professor on the grounds that it would be "looking backward." Your mushy ethics aren't doing anybody any favours.
-
Soft-hearted liberal tolerance of these examples of pure evil (or in Gore's case, of sordid hypocrisy) is a curse on the values of a nation and one reason for the current abominable state of national morality, where the prosecution of torturers (a treaty obligation!) is waived by a law professor on the grounds that it would be "looking backward." Your mushy ethics aren't doing anybody any favours.
He sounds like a Christian fundamentalist decrying the supposed loss of morality brought on by the influence of secularism.
-
<<He sounds like a Christian fundamentalist decrying the supposed loss of morality brought on by the influence of secularism.>>
Just for the record I'm decrying a very obvious total absence of public morality brought on by cowardice.
-
Wow. Starts responding to Prince, while using a 3rd party to make personal insults on me for the same thing he was supposedly ignoring Prince for originally
Interesting disconnect in play
-
And while I'm perfectly willing to cut a break for some underprivileged ghetto youth who's spent his entire formative years on the shitty end of the stick and never really had a chance,
How patronizing.
-
What would you expect from one who's self proclaimed as so much "better than you"?
-
I assume you have never heard of setting your sails to the prevailing winds.
There is an intresting point.
Do you really think that there was a prevailing wind contrary to racism , or do you think there was none?
-
<<Do you really think that there was a prevailing wind contrary to racism , or do you think there was none?>>
I think Thurmond realized his pursuit of racist ideological goals was a dead end and he needed to present himself as a more tolerant man or face political oblivion.
-
<<Do you really think that there was a prevailing wind contrary to racism , or do you think there was none?>>
I think Thurmond realized his pursuit of racist ideological goals was a dead end and he needed to present himself as a more tolerant man or face political oblivion.
A political dead end you say?
Isn't this admitting to a hole in your theroys?
-
<<A political dead end you say?
<<Isn't this admitting to a hole in your theroys?>>
My theory is that racism is in a slow and steady decline and has reached the point where it cannot be openly advocated. However there is still plenty of it around, and the way to reach those racist hearts and minds is through coded messages, that won't alienate the majority but will still resonate with the racism that remains.
Strom's old way of expressing his racism was at a dead end; he had to find new ways of being a racist in an era when it was no longer permissible to express one's racism directly and openly. So he joined the Republican Party.
-
So he joined the Republican Party.
And the GOP gave him what in exchange?
-
A platform to spew his now non-racist rants? Oh wait, they're cloaked in code words, that only racists can connect with. Damn
-
<<A political dead end you say?
<<Isn't this admitting to a hole in your theroys?>>
My theory is that racism is in a slow and steady decline ...
I posit that this decline began sooner than you realise and has been in process since the early 1700's.
William Wilberforce was not the first abolitionist , he was just the most effective of his time.
-
<<And the GOP gave him what in exchange?>>
A refuge, I guess. Status. He'd been thrashed in his own party, made to look like a God-damn leper. He represented the OLD Democratic Party, in which the Solid South played an important role. He and his ilk were the Dirty Secret of the Party, the kind of man that the blacks and Jews who toiled for the party and provided crucial support in key areas had to hold their noses for if they were going to be in the Party at all, and now some kind of shift had occurred, and certain key lifetime Democrats had to hold their noses any more. Suddenly, Strom and his ilk were the skunks at their own Party's garden party. Any deference and respect that they might have been once able to expect as Democratic stalwarts suddenly weren't in the cards any more. Now the Party was run by a new breed, one that wouldn't compromise with the evil that Strom represented, and the skunks had to find a new nest.
What did the GOP provide? Not a hell of a lot, but then refugees don't demand a hell of a lot. They want a new home, often only because the old one has suddenly become intolerable. Basically, the GOP put up with Strom. They sure as hell weren't going to hand him the keys to the Kingdom, but they put up with him, and suddenly, because of him and other racist scum just like him, millions of Southern racists who could no longer vote for the "race-mixin" "nigger-lovin" Democratic Party would either vote GOP for the first time in their miserable stinking lives or stay home on election night, knowing that even a GOP victory wouldn't give the "Yankees" total freedom to poison their lives, not as long as good ole boys like Strom were on board.
-
They sure as hell weren't going to hand him the keys to the Kingdom, but they put up with him, and suddenly, because of him and other racist scum just like him, millions of Southern racists who could no longer vote for the "race-mixin" "nigger-lovin" Democratic Party would either vote GOP for the first time in their miserable stinking lives or stay home on election night, knowing that even a GOP victory wouldn't give the "Yankees" total freedom to poison their lives, not as long as good ole boys like Strom were on board.
I do not know how you make this make sense to yourself.
Did Racism provide an advantage to a politician or a disadvantage?
I can see how it might be one or the other , but I don't see anyone experienceing both at once.
So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?
" " " " " " " " in 1970?
" " " " " " " " in 2008?
I am aware of real changes that you may have missed over that span of time.
Are you aware that England converted from a slave tradeing compeditor to the cheif force for Abolition during the political career of William Wilberforce?
How can it be that you do not beleive in change so rapid as a century and a half?
-
What did the GOP provide? Not a hell of a lot, but then refugees don't demand a hell of a lot. They want a new home, often only because the old one has suddenly become intolerable.
When Strom ran before he switched parties, he garnered nearly 100% of the vote. After he switched parties, he only garnered about 60% of the vote.
So, switching parties COST him votes.
-
d'oh ;)
-
<<When Strom ran before he switched parties, he garnered nearly 100% of the vote. After he switched parties, he only garnered about 60% of the vote.
<<So, switching parties COST him votes.>>
OF COURSE, it cost him votes, but what choice did the bastard have? He'd already been dishonoured in his own Party, which was no longer going to let him get away with the shit he'd been getting away with all his life. He'd have lost some votes anyway even if he stayed - - the votes of the white racists who were going to be swept up in the success of the GOP Southern Strategy. ANY racist was going to lose votes after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, because racism was a declining force. Even among white racists, there would have to be a sizeable contingent that would "hold their nose" and continue to vote Democratic for various reasons, finding better value in the Democratic Party despite its "nigger-lovin, race-mixin" tendencies forced down its throat by the rest of the country.
Strom Thurmond obviously did not leave the Democratic Party in the face of a strong Party campaign to keep him on board. There must have been plenty of urban liberals and newly-enfranchised blacks in the Party who were delighted to see the back of him. A huge power shift had just occurred in the Party, with obvious winners and losers. Strom, fortunately, was not only one of the losers, but one of the ugliest and most prominent among them. Is anyone here really surprised that he'd quit the Party? Or, once he'd left, that it would be the GOP where he'd find his new home? Unfortunately for that racist piece of shit, there wasn't any viable American Nazi Party waiting to receive him or his ilk with open arms. He picked the only refuge available to him, and he happened to fit in with its Southern Strategy to capture the white racist vote of the South, so there was a match of kinds.
-
Strom Thurmond was more interested in staying in office than any principled stand on race. One advantage of being a senator from SC is that one does not have to live in SC most of the time, after all. Thurmond was no dogmatic opponent of race mixing, being as he had a Black mistress for a number of years. A truly intolerant Kluxer would either have never had the affair or would have had the mistress killed, after all.
Ol' Strom just wanted to keep that cushy job.
-
I thought it was more of a one-night stand kind of thing which resulted in a daughter, which, to the bastard's credit, he acknowledged and supported. (Credit where credit is due) I believe ol' Strom was about 19 when he became a Daddy, so you can chalk it up to teenage hormones rather than any deliberate disrespect for his pure Aryan bloodline by mixing it with the bloodlines of untermenschen. Real white men will understand and forgive. Who among them hasn't had his surreptitious bit of fun with "mud people" before assuming the awesome burden of the white man to rule over them?
-
<<Did Racism provide an advantage to a politician or a disadvantage?>>
Advantage in the South, disadvantage nationally.
<<I can see how it might be one or the other , but I don't see anyone experienceing both at once.>>
It gets them local votes but their influence on the national party is diminished. They can win their position but once they're in it, the influence they used to enjoy has lessened. Another KIND of racist, with a more subtle appeal, gets an even bigger advantage locally and does not have the national handicap that Strom, as an old-line racist would have had.
<<So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?>> Yes.
<<" " " " " " " " in 1970?>> Yes.
<<" " " " " " " " in 2008?>> Yes.
<<I am aware of real changes that you may have missed over that span of time.>>
Sure, racism became "the hate that dared not speak its name."
<<Are you aware that England converted from a slave tradeing compeditor to the cheif force for Abolition during the political career of William Wilberforce?>>
No, I don't know much about Wilberforce and I don't know how long England was for slavery before she turned against it. But I know Strom Thurmond and I know his early career. He was dyed-in-the-wool South Carolina racist. Simpler than that it don't get. End of story.
<<How can it be that you do not beleive in change so rapid as a century and a half?>>
Ol' Strom only lived for a century, not a century and a half. He was old, but not THAT old.
-
Hey, lack of racism is proof positive of racism in Tee leaf land
Oh, did anyone else catch the near riotous acts taking place in AZ?? Rock throwing, windows being broken. I even heard about refried beans being spread over Capital windows in the shape of swastikas. But hey, why focus on violence occuring at the behest of rhetoric by this administration. Let's focus on non-violent rhetoric that advocates no violence, with no evidence of any violent offshoots anywhere, as the real threat to this country & its government
-
ANY racist was going to lose votes after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, because racism was a declining force.
You are aware , I suppose, that he had the same constituants before and after. This is not an office elected nationally if racism was a declineing force then it was a declineing force in his state.
-
<<You are aware , I suppose, that he had the same constituants before and after. This is not an office elected nationally if racism was a declineing force then it was a declineing force in his state.>>
Not sure that I get your point. Racism was a declining though still-potent force in South Carolina as in the rest of the nation. At the same time, as an elder statesman, Strom would normally have been entitled to certain perks and deference in his own party, which, following his humiliating defeat over the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, were not likely to be forthcoming.
-
<<...........if racism was a declineing force then it was a declineing force in his state.>>
..... Racism was a declining though still-potent force in South Carolina.........
If it had declined to the point that it would no longer elect a Senator , how much had it declined at that point?
-
<<If it had declined to the point that it would no longer elect a Senator , how much had it declined at that point?>>
Not a hell of a lot, IMHO. It was only OVERT racism that wouldn't fly, the covert kind was still potent enough to make scum like Thurmond a force in the state.
-
<<If it had declined to the point that it would no longer elect a Senator , how much had it declined at that point?>>
Not a hell of a lot, IMHO. It was only OVERT racism that wouldn't fly, the covert kind was still potent enough to make scum like Thurmond a force in the state.
Voteing is done in secret.
Even the covert Racists could no longer produce a majority.
I expect that the transition was a lot earlyer in fact because the purpose and effect of Jim Crow laws was was to produce an advantage to the racist vote , so the real majority may have abandoned the hard core racisim years earlyer.
-
<<Voteing is done in secret.>>
So what? The decision to vote is made on the basis of statements made in public and on the observation of public events.
<<Even the covert Racists could no longer produce a majority.>>
What are you talking about? Of course they could. From the Wikipedia bio on Strom Thurmond:
<<Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 to April 1956 and November 1956 to January 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican, switching parties as the conservative base shifted.>>
<<I expect that the transition was a lot earlyer in fact because the purpose and effect of Jim Crow laws was was to produce an advantage to the racist vote , so the real majority may have abandoned the hard core racisim years earlyer.>>
The transition? What transition? Did the bastids stop votin fer Strom jiss cuz a them race-mixin mongrelizin nigger-lovin' Democrats forcin Commie racial equality legislation down the throats of good Amerricuns?
-
Folks voted for Strom for one simple reason. He delivered the pork.
-
<<Folks voted for Strom for one simple reason. He delivered the pork. >>
Bonus! He's a racist AND he delivers the pork. You think they woulda voted for a race-mixer who delivered the pork?
Clearly his racism was no deterrent to the good folks of South Carolina. They loved their pork and didn't give a shit who delivered it to their tables, even a guy who had defended lynch mobs. It was obviously no deal-breaker for them.
-
You think they woulda voted for a race-mixer who delivered the pork?
You think his love child was a well kept secret?
About as secret as the weight of Lindsey Grahams loafers.
If the South is anything it is a region of contradictions.
That's why country songs sing about showing up in church Sunday morning with Saturday night on your breath.
You think perhaps bootleggers were Catholics?
-
<<You think his love child was a well kept secret?>>
Yes I do. I was bowled over by the news, which IIRC came out in just the last few years. All the news stories that I read said that both the mother and daughter kept their mouths shut until after the old man died.
<<About as secret as the weight of Lindsey Grahams loafers.>>
Ya got me there. I don't know jack-shit about the weight of my own loafers, let alone Lindsey Graham's. Not sure that I need to know either one.
<<If the South is anything it is a region of contradictions.>>
You mean Whitey fucking the help? I'm not sure how much contradiction there is. I know that "miscegenation" was a statutory crime, but in the popular racist ideology of the day, there might have been some kind of tolerance for a droit du seigneur, even though none of those racist morons would have been familiar with the actual phrase itself.
<<That's why country songs sing about showing up in church Sunday morning with Saturday night on your breath.>>
That's my kinda music, though I'm not familiar with the particular song. But I think that Christian hypocrisy, or for that matter, religious hypocrisy in general, is not exactly confined to the Deep South. Seems to be universal.
<<You think perhaps bootleggers were Catholics?>>
Probably only the better ones. I bet all the moonshiners were good ole boys, though. All Prods.
-
Hey, lack of racism is proof positive of racism in Tee leaf land
Oh, did anyone else catch the near riotous acts taking place in AZ?? Rock throwing, windows being broken. I even heard about refried beans being spread over Capital windows in the shape of swastikas. But hey, why focus on violence occuring at the behest of rhetoric by this administration. Let's focus on non-violent rhetoric that advocates no violence, with no evidence of any violent offshoots anywhere, as the real threat to this country & its government
ABC: 'Mostly Peaceful' Immigration Protests vs. 'Very Ugly' Tea Party Rallies
By: Scott Whitlock
April 26, 2010
On Saturday's Good Morning America, reporter Mike Von Fremd downplayed the violence of protesters against Arizona's new immigration law. He spun, "Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested." Yet, ABC derided March's Tea Party rallies as "very ugly," despite the fact that there were no arrests.
In contrast, on March 20, World News host David Muir scolded, "Protesters against the [health care] plan gathered on the streets of the capital where late today we learned words shouted turned very ugly, reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protester actually spitting on a Congressman." Continuing to fret over those opposed the bill, he complained, "Late word from Washington tonight about just how ugly the crowds gathered outside the Longworth office building have become."
If Tea Party protesters had thrown bottles at members of Congress or police officers -- or anyone else, for that matter -- it seems unlikely that ABC would have described them as "mostly peaceful."
Over on NBC's Today show on Saturday, Telemundo's Jose Diaz Balart reported from the scene: "Tensions were high outside the Capitol. Four protesters were arrested." On CBS's Early Show, co-host Chris Wragge made only a quick reference to the protests: "On Friday, there were protests against the bill outside the state capitol in Phoenix."
Naaaaa, no bias here. Move along (http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100426060932.aspx)
-
After Washington-Williams came forward, the Thurmond family publicly acknowledged her parentage. Many close friends and staff members had long suspected this to have been the case, stating that Thurmond had always taken a great amount of interest in Washington-Williams and that she was granted a degree of access to Thurmond more appropriate to a family member than to a member of the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond#Another_daughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond#Another_daughter)
-
<<You think his love child was a well kept secret?
<<About as secret as the weight of Lindsey Grahams loafers.>>
Not getting the reference to the loafers, but assuming it's a synonym for "common knowledge," I have to say that a secret that is known only to close friends and staff members is hardly common knowledge. I, for example, being neither a close friend nor a staff member of the late racist, like 99.9% of the population of the State of South Carolina, had absolutely no idea of their beloved Strom's Rassenschade
and I have to assume were as surprised by it as I was. Whether they were as indulgent of it as I am is not known.
-
"Light in the loafers" is a euphemism for being gay.
And pretty much everyone in the south knew about Strom's love child.
-
Huh? Light in the loafers = gay??? Where the fuck did THAT come from? Well, thanks for the heads-up. Never heard that one before in my life.
<<And pretty much everyone in the south knew about Strom's love child.>>
BEFORE Strom died?
BT at least provided a source for the close friends and staff being in the know, what's your source for the "pretty much everyone in the south" knowing about this?
-
Huh? Light in the loafers = gay??? Where the fuck did THAT come from? Well, thanks for the heads-up. Never heard that one before in my life.
"light in the loafers - or light on one's feet - (of men) effeminate or homosexual. 1967 DAS (Dictionary of American Speech)(Supp.) Lightfooted.Homosexual. Fairly common since c1955."
"From "Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, Volume 2, H-O, by J.E. Lighter, Random House, New York, 1997."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/22/messages/379.html (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/22/messages/379.html)
BEFORE Strom died?
BT at least provided a source for the close friends and staff being in the know, what's your source for the "pretty much everyone in the south" knowing about this?
It was widely discussed on the computer bulletin boards in the Carolinas in the late 80s. Also, there was a book published in 1993 that brought up the allegations and discussed them as if it were common knowledge (Strom Thurmond and the politics of southern change By Nadine Cohodas, Simon & Schuster 1993).
-
<<Do you really think that there was a prevailing wind contrary to racism , or do you think there was none?>>
I think Thurmond realized his pursuit of racist ideological goals was a dead end and he needed to present himself as a more tolerant man or face political oblivion.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
<<Did Racism provide an advantage to a politician or a disadvantage?>>
Advantage in the South, disadvantage nationally.
<<I can see how it might be one or the other , but I don't see anyone experienceing both at once.>>
It gets them local votes but their influence on the national party is diminished. They can win their position but once they're in it, the influence they used to enjoy has lessened. Another KIND of racist, with a more subtle appeal, gets an even bigger advantage locally and does not have the national handicap that Strom, as an old-line racist would have had.
<<So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?>> Yes.
<<" " " " " " " " in 1970?>> Yes.
<<" " " " " " " " in 2008?>> Yes.
<<I am aware of real changes that you may have missed over that span of time.>>
Sure, racism became "the hate that dared not speak its name."
<<Are you aware that England converted from a slave tradeing compeditor to the cheif force for Abolition during the political career of William Wilberforce?>>
No, I don't know much about Wilberforce and I don't know how long England was for slavery before she turned against it. But I know Strom Thurmond and I know his early career. He was dyed-in-the-wool South Carolina racist. Simpler than that it don't get. End of story.
<<How can it be that you do not beleive in change so rapid as a century and a half?>>
Ol' Strom only lived for a century, not a century and a half. He was old, but not THAT old.
A mind can change in about the time that it takes to blink.
Even if so profoundly that it takes years to evaluate .
Changeing a national legacy may take a generation or seven , but it depends on what is going on.
You can beleive that England can make this change , Canada can make this change , the northern US can make this change , each in a space lessor than fifty years.
But contrary to every evidence, you cannot beleive that 150 years is enough time for Southern US citizens to make any change at all?
Ok we are special , but not quite that special.
-
<<So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?>> Yes.
<<" " " " " " " " in 1970?>> Yes.
<<" " " " " " " " in 2008?>> Yes.
<<So did a politician need to be a racist to get southern votes in 1870?>> Yes. Check
<<" " " " " " " " in 1970?>> Yes. Marginal
<<" " " " " " " " in 2008?>> Yes. False
I feel generous to give you a 66% on this exam , the way the second question is worded should have lead to a NO.