Featured Are the Republicans Beyond Saving?

OldRegular · Nov 26, 2013

Crabtownboy said: ↑

Old, but I bet there were separate rest rooms and water fountains. I was a teenager in the 50's in a part of Virginia much more tolerant than east of the mountains in Virginia and I can remember the races being separated. Also restaurants were segregated also, though my future father-in-law, who was from Georgia, would serve African-Americans and hobos in back of the restaurant. If a person were really down on their luck, he would serve them free a big stack of pancakes. He also insisted that all his employees, regardless of race call each other Mr. or Miss or Mrs.

I don't know about the buses as I lived in the country and to go to town we had to drive. As a matter of fact, I am not sure the "big" town, all of 5000 people, had buses at that time.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about rest rooms or water fountains. I was making the point that sailors, whether from the north or the south, respected black women and would give them their seat if they had one.

That being said it is the democrat party that is the party of racism in this country! Is it racism CTB when black teenagers are "sucker punching" white folks in cities. I suspect most are up north and Obama can't open his mouth.

Crabtownboy · Nov 26, 2013

OldRegular said: ↑

I did not say anything about rest rooms or water fountains. I was making the point that sailors, whether from the north or the south, respected black women and would give them their seat if they had one.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to have a black person who lived in Norfolk tell us of their experiences on the city buses.

That being said it is the democrat party that is the party of racism in this country!
Click to expand...

I disagree, neither political party has much of a bragging right. But the Republicans are the ones who had the Southern Policy and have pursued a racist agenda to garner votes in the South. When the Civil Rights Bill passed and LBJ signed it into law he is reported to have said, "We [meaning the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation." This was when Nixon began formulating the Republican Southern Policy and which was continued by Reagan.

Is it racism CTB when black teenagers are "sucker punching" white folks in cities. I suspect most are up north and Obama can't open his mouth.
Click to expand...

Old, there is white racism. There is black racism. Neither is right. Both are reprehensible. [/quote]

Old, is it racism if white teenagers sucker punch a black person?

It was also racism when my friend from China was studying here and was jumped one night for no reason and beaten almost to death. I do not know if those who beat him were black or white, but it was racism. Don't you agree?

OldRegular · Nov 26, 2013

Crabtownboy said: ↑

It would be interesting to have a black person who lived in Norfolk tell us of their experiences on the city buses.
Click to expand...

I am not speaking for blacks Crabby. I am just noting the behavior of sailors I observed.

Crabtownboy said: ↑

I disagree, neither political party has much of a bragging right. But the Republicans are the ones who had the Southern Policy and have pursued a racist agenda to garner votes in the South. When the Civil Rights Bill passed and LBJ signed it into law he is reported to have said, "We [meaning the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation." This was when Nixon began formulating the Republican Southern Policy and which was continued by Reagan.
Click to expand...

Quit lying Crabby. That is what did LBJ in. He could not lie in the White House as he did in the Senate. Furthermore, if it had not been for Republicans the Civil Rights Law would not have passed.

Southerners in general do not like big government. They are like the Founding Fathers in that way. The reactionary-democrats may want to return to the divine right of kings, even though many if not most are agnostic/atheist, but true patriots do not!

Crabtownboy said: ↑

Old, there is white racism. There is black racism. Neither is right. Both are reprehensible.

Old, is it racism if white teenagers sucker punch a black person?

It was also racism when my friend from China was studying here and was jumped one night for no reason and beaten almost to death. I do not know if those who beat him were black or white, but it was racism. Don't you agree?

Click to expand...

I believe that anyone who insists that he is entirely free of racial prejudice is not truthful. It has been my experience that if I look at a race as a group there are racial biases. If I look them as individuals there are no racial biases.

My argument is that the reactionary-democrat party is racist. They don't look at blacks, for example, as individuals but as a group to be manipulated for political purposes. As proof of this look at the way black conservatives are portrayed, Oreos or Uncle Toms. Dr Ben Carson and Justice Clarence Thomas are prime examples of this.

Reactionary-democrats have the same attitude toward women who are conservative, especially young pretty ones like Sarah Palin. That woman and her girls have been vilified beyond reason by Reactionary-democrat politicians and their mindless talking heads. Where are the Crabby-types that have called MSMBC to task for their slimy talking head's sickening remarks about Governor Palin!

Crabtownboy · Nov 26, 2013

OldRegular said: ↑

Quit lying Crabby. That is what did LBJ in. He could not lie in the White House as he did in the Senate. Furthermore, if it had not been for Republicans the Civil Rights Law would not have passed.

Click to expand...

I will accept an apology from you Old.

Johnson signed the revised and stronger bill into law on July 2, 1964.[63] Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party. Moreover, Richard Nixon politically counterattacked with the Southern Strategy where it would "secure" votes for the Republican Party by grabbing the advocates of segregation as well as most of the Southern Democrats.[64]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson
Click to expand...

AFTER President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he reportedly turned to his press secretary and lamented that Democrats “have lost the South for a generation.” Johnson's judgment was optimistic. Despite brief flashes of strength during the presidential elections of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Democrats—particularly white Democrats—have been losing ground in the South for half a century.

http://www.economist.com/node/17467202
Click to expand...

"We have lost the South for a generation"
With those words reportedly spoken to Bill Moyers after signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, LBJ showed that he actually underestimated the power of racism to affect our politics. If generations are counted in 20 year increments, we're now in the middle of the 3rd generation and the South is still lost.

http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2011/08/we-have-lost-south-for-generation.html
Click to expand...

church mouse guy · Nov 27, 2013

Crabtownboy said: ↑

Says the man who will not disavow White Supremacists.

Yes the Solid South was Democratic. But with the passage of the Civil Rights act and the implementation of the Southern Strategy by the GOP the parties reversed with the GOP becoming racist. Fact of history.

But back on topic, unless there is great change the GOP will continue to attract some folk but will be a chapter on a party destroying itself, like the Whigs did, in the history of the US.
Click to expand...

No, it is not a fact of history to say that the GOP became racist. The Democrats were the party of slavery and abortion and the GOP provided the votes to pass all civil rights acts including the one in 1964 that so many Democrats voted against. Fact of history.

OldRegular · Nov 27, 2013

church mouse guy said: ↑

No, it is not a fact of history to say that the GOP became racist. The Democrats were the party of slavery and abortion and the GOP provided the votes to pass all civil rights acts including the one in 1964 that so many Democrats voted against. Fact of history.
Click to expand...

Please! Please! Do not confuse CTB with the truth!

Crabtownboy · Nov 27, 2013

church mouse guy said: ↑

No, it is not a fact of history to say that the GOP became racist. The Democrats were the party of slavery and abortion and the GOP provided the votes to pass all civil rights acts including the one in 1964 that so many Democrats voted against. Fact of history.
Click to expand...

Below is an explanation of the GOP developing a racist policy ... by a GOP strategists.

This was one of several reasons I left the Republican party.

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[11] but merely popularized it.[12] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites (emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[2]
While Phillips sought to polarize ethnic voting in general, and not just to win the white South, the South was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate, and the House, as some legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. In addition, the Republican Party worked for years to develop grassroots political organizations across the South, supporting candidates for local school boards and offices, as one example.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy[/QUOTE]

Now of course they are also playing to the alien-phobic voters.

thisnumbersdisconnected · Nov 27, 2013

OldRegular · Nov 27, 2013

Crabtownboy said: ↑

Below is an explanation of the GOP developing a racist policy ... by a GOP strategists.
Click to expand...

You should know that Wiki is not dependable.

Crabtownboy said: ↑

This was one of several reasons I left the Republican party.
Click to expand...

You are exactly where you belong, with the pro-slaughter of the unborn party

Crabtownboy said: ↑

Now of course they are also playing to the alien-phobic voters.
Click to expand...

A typical radical-reactionary-democrat response.

If a Christian believes homosexuality is a sin he is labeled homophobic.

If a citizen is opposed to the invasion of aliens he is labeled alien-phobic.

How about labeling CTB baby-phobic, or liberty-phobic, or freedom-phobic, or self reliant-phobic, or white conservative-phobic, and so on!

righteousdude2 · Nov 28, 2013

Are......

FollowTheWay said: ↑

As the Republicans search for a new and more electable identity they have a fundamental problem. Ever since they took their first major right turn in 1964, they have made a series of bargains in order to strengthen their ranks: the Christian right, the Southern strategy, which validated racism as party policy, the Sagebrush Rebellion, which represented big ranching and farming interests as well as the mining industry, the Club for Growth, a highly conservative organization with a lot of money to pour into primaries to defeat more centrist incumbents. However successful momentarily, this series of deals ultimately cost the Republicans broad national appeal and flexibility.

The emergence beginning in 2010 of the Tea Party as a force in Congress—part grass roots, part developed and exploited from Washington—pushed the Republican Party still further to the right. Conservatives took control of a large number of states and had a significant impact on national policy, and for the first time, there was a sizeable number of House members who despised government and had run on the explicit promise never to compromise.

But politics is predicated on the idea that its practitioners will work out their differences. This was a revolutionary change—no president of either party had been confronted with such an obdurate opposition. “Compromise” had never before been a term of obloquy. Regularly frustrated by these absolutists and those too frightened of the movement to challenge them, Boehner has less control over his flock than any Republican Speaker in memory. It’s not that he’s lacking the political skills; the Tea Party members and the school of fish that follows them won’t vote with Boehner out of party loyalty because they simply don’t owe him anything. They got to Congress with strong financial support from powerful interests and they have their own constituencies.

More than half the governors, including all but one of the nation’s Republican statehouses, have refused to set up state exchanges through which consumers are supposed to be able to shop for competing insurance plans. FreedomWorks, the most powerful national Tea Party organization, has waged a national crusade to “Block Obamacare” by rejecting the exchanges. The joke is that if a state refuses to set up an exchange the federal government will come in and do it. (Six Republican governors have accepted the Medicaid expansion in the health care law because the offer was too good to turn down.) Another tactic the Republicans have used to fight laws on the books is to block the appointments of the president’s nominees to administer them.

One substantive matter on which leaders of the two parties agree is immigration reform—not just because it’s the right and urgent thing to do but because it’s in their interest. The Republicans panicked about the huge electoral advantage the president got in 2012 from Hispanic voters, whom he carried 71 percent to 29 percent, and who provided the margin of victory in some key states. In their debates in the primaries last year most of the Republican candidates played to the strong anti-immigrant streak that dwells within the party’s rank and file. And at election time—as in the case of other groups the Republicans had baldly tried to keep from the polls in order to depress the Democratic vote—these efforts backfired, and Hispanics turned out in unprecedented numbers.
But while immigration reform may be seen as the next great civil rights advance the actual hammering out of a bipartisan bill is likely to prove extremely difficult. Such bills have foundered before on fierce regional and partisan differences. And as in the case of other minorities, more than one issue is at stake. As long as the Republicans push for “smaller government”—a euphemism for cutting domestic programs such as education at all levels as well as food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid and of course the tax rates—their appeal to groups they’ve been losing will remain limited. The Republicans are in a deep hole and it’s not foregone that even if an immigration law is passed Hispanics will turn to them in droves.

The Republican leaders are trying to avert the serial cataclysms they have done so much to bring on: the across-the-board cut in federal programs (the so-called sequester) that will be imposed on March 1 barring a compromise; a possible shutdown of the federal government at the end of March; and the return of the debt limit in mid-May. This government-by-crisis has threatened to define the Republicans in Washington as the party of green eyeshaded accountants with nary a thought for the well-being of the middle class, not to mention the poor. (The 2012 primaries were littered with jokes about food stamps.) That it was considered progress that House leaders persuaded the most radical members that shutting down the government was a more reasonable approach than risking another government default—and a second lowering of the US’s credit rating—was a sign of the extent to which the idea of governing has lost its moorings.

The focus on the somewhat hoked-up drama of the serial crises about funding the government has tended to obscure the more fundamental point: the Republicans are succeeding in pushing the president toward precisely the wrong economic policy for a nation still coming out of a severe recession. The Washington debate is dominated by the argument—based more on ideology than on history and betraying ignorance of the fate of European nations that have blundered into ruinous austerity programs—that the most urgent thing to be done is to cut spending. That proposition has become such a truism that neither the president nor a significant number of elected Democrats are willing to publicly challenge it.

Americans who long for a group of moderate Republicans with whom a Democratic president might deal—Bill Clinton enjoyed such help if he didn’t always use it wisely (and thus failed to pass a health care bill)—are in for a disappointment. That Republican Party is gone and the base of the party isn’t going to permit its return, at least not for the foreseeable future. If anything, the party lines are hardening. The Republican leaders are desperately trying to make sure that the kinds of nutcases that have received nominations for Senate seats in the last two elections, at the expense of more reasonable candidates, only to go on to lose what were likely Republican seats, will no longer jeopardize their party’s fortunes. Karl Rove, though his effort to boost the Republicans’ successes through milking donors of over $100 million failed miserably, is setting up an organization to try to prevent likely losers from getting nominated over more trustworthy conservatives. The trouble is it’s not always clear who is going to say something cripplingly stupid, and the whole idea, quietly supported by some party leaders, isn’t sitting well with the grass roots who will not take dictation from “the establishment” on whom they should nominate.

Finally, underlying the rigidity that has characterized the Congress in the past few years is a structural formulation that does not bend with breezes. As Nate Silver of The New York Times has pointed out, there are fewer “swing” districts in the House than ever before. “This means,” he writes, “that most members of the House now come from hyperpartisan districts, where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party,” though Republicans are more at risk of primary challenges. The great shift toward the right on the Republican side occurred in 2010, when participation, as usual with off-year elections, was limited to the most zealous. The result was a dramatic increase in Republican control of entire state governments—from which have flowed the laws, backed by the Koch brothers and other conservative donors, to break up public employee unions and tighten restrictions on abortions to the point of effectively strangling Roe v. Wade, as well as the efforts to fix federal elections through restricting voting rights and perhaps even tinkering with the electoral college and, of course, the highly consequential power of reapportionment.

The country is at a hard place: Is it going to be governable? The great challenge of returning to a workable government is to create parties that can sort out our differences without threat from extremes that weaken the democratic system. People in despair over politics in Washington might be well advised to start paying more attention to who gets elected to their state capitals.

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/feb/11/are-republicans-beyond-saving/
Click to expand...

.....any of those in politics worth saving?

If we are talking spiritually, the answer an unequivicable YES!

If it pertaining to keeping them in office beyond their next terms, I'd say let's dump the whole bucnh: DNC, GOP and Indep! :wavey:

Crabtownboy · Nov 28, 2013

There is no doubt that race played its role in the Southern Strategy developed by the GOP. Non Wiki quote on the Southern Strategy by Phillips:

The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are.

- See more at: http://www.politicalruminations.com/2011/04/morning-quote.html#sthash.HvhZfpOK.dpuf
Click to expand...

More on the Southern Strategy:

In the early Seventies, Richard Nixon seized on an initiative popularized by Kevin Phillips called the “Southern Strategy.” Phillips noted that in the wake of Democratic sponsorship of the Civil Rights revolution, the Republican Party’s historic base in the South—black voters—had been shattered. Whereas once the Republican Party had commanded the absolute loyalty of the Southern blacks, during the Kennedy and Johnson years, Phillips reckoned, the Republicans had done well to draw 20 percent of the black vote. However, the Southern white middle class was smoldering over the grant of civil rights—especially voting rights—to blacks. They were alienated by the Democrats and, notwithstanding the threat of opportunistic third-party candidates like George C. Wallace, ripe for the plucking by the Republicans. Phillips suggested that a new Republican majority could be fashioned in the eleven states of the Old Confederacy, to which would be added the existing Republican base in the North, Midwest and plains, Mountain West, and Pacific West. The election of 1972 showed that Phillips’s math was right, and in 1980 and 1984, Ronald Reagan pursued an electoral strategy similarly built on the transformed allegiance of white Southerners. Rove altered this grand design, tweaking it by placing the religious right at the heart of the G.O.P. effort (and thereby displacing the more prosperous middle-class voters who had been there before). This strategy succeeded beyond the expectations of its authors. Today it has become an albatross for the G.O.P.

http://harpers.org/blog/2008/11/the-southern-strategy-comes-of-age/
Click to expand...

thisnumbersdisconnected · Nov 28, 2013

.... not to mention an unnecessary gratuitous insult, given neither party can escape the broad brush of bigotry from their history.

Featured Are the Republicans Beyond Saving?

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

church mouse guy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

Useful Searches

Featured Are the Republicans Beyond Saving?

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member Site Supporter

church mouse guy Well-Known Member Site Supporter

OldRegular Well-Known Member

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

OldRegular Well-Known Member

righteousdude2 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member Site Supporter

thisnumbersdisconnected New Member

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

church mouse guy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

righteousdude2 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Crabtownboy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter