1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How the South Was Won and What is a Republican

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Robert Harris, Dec 18, 2002.

  1. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Ignored here is the Nixon administration -- anybody remember "I am not a crook" Tricky Dicky? During his administrationj the Republican Party explicitly adopted a Southern Strategy -- to break the Democrats solid hold on the South. That included pandering to those in the South who still were opposed to civil rights for blacks, etc., but doing it in a way that they could not be called old-time racists. They succeeded quite well, Trent Lott being a prime example.

    Some of the old time racist Democrats campaigned by hollering "Niggers are coming, Niggers are coming, bar the door." (E.g.,, George Wallace.) The Republicans were not so crude. They appealed to the same constituency by using code phrases. Appealing to the ideals of the Confederacy, having reverence for its flag, talking States Rights -- meaning rights of states to ignore the Constitution, etc.

    Yes, not every Republican is a racist. But the party has a racist twist. I believe that is what Mr. Clinton is referring to. And, despicable a human being as he seems to be, he is absolutely right. And the Republicans want Lott our because if he stays their hidden racist appeal will become exposed.

    Moderator: Originally split from <a href="http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=38076#post38076">this thread</a>.
  2. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I'm sorry, but I just think this sentence is pure bullshit.

    I generally vote Republican, does that make me a racist?

    Lott doesn't represent the modern Republican party. Lott doesn't represent me, in fact, I cringed when he was re-named the Senate Majority Leader, simply because he's a useless tit.

    I want Lott out because he SETS ME BACK. I believe in an achievement based society, where minorities aren't given special dummied down tests but instead helped to achieve on those tests, less government and pork spending. Lott gave the panderers ammunition to use against what I believe in, because he's a pure idiot. THAT'S what pisses off Republicans, not some "hidden racist appeal".
  3. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    1) On point 1, giggle.

    2) On point 2, I explicitly said that not all Republicans are racists. I could expand that if you want and say that most aren't. That does not dispsute the fact that the party organization works at appeaaling to racists in subtkle ways, to capture the south.
    3) If Lott does not represent the party, why did his Republican colleagues elect him their leader?

    But you certainly are right in viewing him as an idiot. :)
  4. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Robert, the Republican Party does not pander to racists. The issue of state's rights versus rights of the federal government are clearly spelled out in Article I Section 10 of the Constitution and in the 10th Ammendment. The Federal Government does routinely exert its muscle and usurp the rights guaranteed to the states. To decry that is not a racist ploy or underpinning.

    Folks who want the federal government permanently shrunk and out of the business of the citizens are not racists. They are however a threat to democrats who see the job of the federal government as that of micromanagement and social engineering...in short, the blight of an 800 lb. busy body.
  5. jamming

    jamming Banned

    In addition, the GOP attracted 40% more individual donors! (George W. Bush set an fund-raising record by collecting the most money from one-thousand-dollar donors in the history of presidential politics.) Far more people giving small amounts exist as contributors to the Republican Party - while Democrats skunked the GOP among the super-rich. That's no surprise, since nine of the twelve richest members of the United States Senate are Democrats.

    I realize that the article is from the Wash-Times, but who else will do the research?

    The Article
  6. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Mostly irrelevant, and aa lot of bullshit.

    1) The Republican party does pander to racists. That is how it came to control the South, once a Democratic stronghold. Once the Democratic party became committed to civil rights -- post 1948 -- the Republicans quietly moved in to appeal to disaffected formerly Democratic voters and won the South.

    2) Yes, there is continuous conflict between the states and the feds over powers, and constant leal battles. But the phrase "states rights" as a political slogan in common post-reconstruction usage, and certainly, in my memory, in post-WWII politcal usage clearly was a code phrase meaning "Do not let anyone interfere with our methods of preventing blacks from voting or exercising other rights guaranteed under the constitution and its amendments."
  7. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    For the <A HREF="http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/source/AllCands.htm">1999-2000 election cycle</A>, based on Federal Election Commission data released on January 3, 2002, the Republican party had the upper hand in total donations (193 million for Bush vs 132 million for Gore) and the top contributor for Bush (MBNA Corp) was $241,000 compared to Gore's top contributor (Ernst&Young) of $135,000.

    Compare <A HREF="http://www.fec.gov/press/20020919partyfund/dem_federal.html">1989-2002 Democratic finance activity</A> to <A HREF="http://www.fec.gov/press/20020919partyfund/rep_federal.html">1989-2002 Republican finance activity</A>. Republican party looks richer to me.

    <A HREF="http://www.fec.gov/press/20020909canstats/cong18.html">2002 Congressional Finance Activity</A> also show the Republicans coming out on top, though by a mere 18 mil in reciepts.

    I'm not saying this is a full accouting, nor does it offer much in the way of individual campaign donations, but regardless of individual donations, the Republicans are a richer party.
  8. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    He said more donations of a lesser amount, not a lower total. The figures I looked at were just totals, not applicable in supporting or debunking what Jamming said. He is not discussing the richest party but which party attracts money from the rich. According to the link he posted his assessment was accurate.
  9. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    1)The south was only a democratic stronghold because the southerners so hated the Republicans as it was a Republican president who broke the back of the secessionists and then the carpetbaggers that rushed in to fill southern politics through reconstruction. The southern democrat was a 'conservative' democrat a la Byrd. The politics of conservatism vs. liberalism is substantively larger than racism and civil rights.

    2.) While 'state's rights' was used in the south in reference to that particularly nasty situation, a look around the country will show that it has for a long time meant that larger conflict that many would see a more noble fight sans the semantics. In truth, I have heard Libertarians use the term far more than southerners over the last 20 or so years.
  10. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    And for what it's worth, I think the title of this new thread could use some work.
  11. Coriolis

    Coriolis Bob's your uncle

    Well, this thread is a fine mess now... lol. Splitting went a bit awry.

    Appears I did misinterpret the sentence in his post that read "part of the rich" (and he hadn't posted the link to the source when I started composing my reply)... oh well, reading up on campaign finance is always good for a giggle or two.
  12. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I agree. Note my sig.

Share This Page