Do we really want to go through the math on that one yet again?

 

It was a northern vs. southern referendum. Period. End. Of. Story.

It is funny how liberals celebrate the Democratic Party of LBJ, Harry Truman, and JFK, yet dismiss the party that opposed the Civil Rights Act as a group of southern bigots who all changed their voter registration to the GOP.

 

Many of the same Democrats who fought tooth and nail to deprive blacks of their constitutional rights in the 1960s supported the "great" Democratic leaders of their generation. If anything, the Democrats who opposed LBJ's legislation were more liberal socially than those who stood shoulder to shoulder with Kennedy, Truman, and FDR.

It is funny how liberals celebrate the Democratic Party of LBJ, Harry Truman, and JFK, yet dismiss the party that opposed the Civil Rights Act as a group of southern bigots who all changed their voter registration to the GOP.

 

Many of the same Democrats who fought tooth and nail to deprive blacks of their constitutional rights in the 1960s supported the "great" Democratic leaders of their generation. If anything, the Democrats who opposed LBJ's legislation were more liberal socially than those who stood shoulder to shoulder with Kennedy, Truman, and FDR.

Thanks for the revisionist history lesson. The Dixiecrat Dems who opposed civil rights legislation in the '60s are now firmly in the GOP small tent, as LBJ predicted in '65. The GOP clearly is the party of Christmas past, with blowhards like Hannity, Limbaugh and your beloved Levin hearkening back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan every 5 minutes. It has been years since I've heard a Dem "celebrate" Truman, JFK or FDR.

 

Speaking of Reagan, one of the reasons the GOP fares so poorly with the 18-30 crowd is that the GOP is so fixated on Reagan, whom young people only know by reputation.

Love it when you receive your new talking points emails.

Love it when you receive your new talking points emails.

You sound like a broken record. Do try to freshen up your comebacks from time to time.

Thanks for the revisionist history lesson. The Dixiecrat Dems who opposed civil rights legislation in the '60s are now firmly in the GOP small tent, as LBJ predicted in '65. The GOP clearly is the party of Christmas past, with blowhards like Hannity, Limbaugh and your beloved Levin hearkening back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan every 5 minutes. It has been years since I've heard a Dem "celebrate" Truman, JFK or FDR.

 

Speaking of Reagan, one of the reasons the GOP fares so poorly with the 18-30 crowd is that the GOP is so fixated on Reagan, whom young people only know by reputation.

So, let me get this straight. The southern Democratic bigots only joined the party after the terms of FDR, Truman, and JFK ended, just so they could fight for segregation and then switch to the Republican Party? And, Democrats no longer point to the accomplishments of FDR, Truman, or FDR with pride? That is hilarious! :lol2:

So, let me get this straight. The southern Democratic bigots only joined the party after the terms of FDR, Truman, and JFK ended, just so they could fight for segregation and then switch to the Republican Party? And, Democrats no longer point to the accomplishments of FDR, Truman, or FDR with pride? That is hilarious! :lol2:

Brush up on your history a little bit. This isn't too difficult. When did Strom Thurmond quit being a Democrat? Answer: 1964.

Brush up on your history a little bit. This isn't too difficult. When did Strom Thurmond quit being a Democrat? Answer: 1964.

So, what was Strom Thurmond during the terms of FDR, JFK, and Truman? My point is that the Democratic Party of LBJ was essentially the Democratic Party of those other presidents as well.

 

You cannot pretend that those who opposed desegregation were just a bunch of Republicans masquerading as Democrats. Had it not been for Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. That is a fact. Most of the opposition to the act came from Democrats.

So, what was Strom Thurmond during the terms of FDR, JFK, and Truman? My point is that the Democratic Party of LBJ was essentially the Democratic Party of those other presidents as well.

 

You cannot pretend that those who opposed desegregation were just a bunch of Republicans masquerading as Democrats. Had it not been for Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. That is a fact. Most of the opposition to the act came from Democrats.

Slice and dice it any way you desire. The fact remains the Dixiecrats no longer are Democrats. They're Republicans. The process took a while. Strom Thurmond was one of the first to break ranks in '64. Zell Miller was one of the last in '04. One certainly could argue that the GOP today is a Southern-values party. Certainly such regional bias has contributed to the decline of the Republican Party in New England and the West Coast, as well in states such as Virginia.

Slice and dice it any way you desire. The fact remains the Dixiecrats no longer are Democrats. They're Republicans. The process took a while. Strom Thurmond was one of the first to break ranks in '64. Zell Miller was one of the last in '04. One certainly could argue that the GOP today is a Southern-values party. Certainly such regional bias has contributed to the decline of the Republican Party in New England and the West Coast, as well in states such as Virginia.

I am not the slicer and dicer here. The Civil Rights Act passed because of strong support from the Republican Party and despite the strong opposition among Democrats. Both parties have changed over time. One can distance oneself and one's party all one wants from the party's past transgressions but it does not change history.

So, what was Strom Thurmond during the terms of FDR, JFK, and Truman? My point is that the Democratic Party of LBJ was essentially the Democratic Party of those other presidents as well.

 

You cannot pretend that those who opposed desegregation were just a bunch of Republicans masquerading as Democrats. Had it not been for Republican votes, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed. That is a fact. Most of the opposition to the act came from Democrats.

 

So who changed? The Dems or Wallace, Thurmond and company? Seems like their "type" of Dems were ousted from the party.

 

You said that these guys supported FDR, Truman, Kennedy, et al. But history shows that Strom ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket when Truman's Civil Rights stances on desegregating the military rubbed him the wrong way. Same with Wallace in '64 and '68.

 

Most people who read history have stated on this thread that it was a Southern issue more than a political Party issue.

So who changed? The Dems or Wallace, Thurmond and company? Seems like their "type" of Dems were ousted from the party.

 

You said that these guys supported FDR, Truman, Kennedy, et al. But history shows that Strom ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket when Truman's Civil Rights stances on desegregating the military rubbed him the wrong way. Same with Wallace in '64 and '68.

 

Most people who read history have stated on this thread that it was a Southern issue more than a political Party issue.

 

As have I.

 

To insinuate that the Dixiecrats of the early 1960's remotely resembles today's Democratic party is uninformed at best, and revisionist history at worst.

So who changed? The Dems or Wallace, Thurmond and company? Seems like their "type" of Dems were ousted from the party.

 

You said that these guys supported FDR, Truman, Kennedy, et al. But history shows that Strom ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket when Truman's Civil Rights stances on desegregating the military rubbed him the wrong way. Same with Wallace in '64 and '68.

 

Most people who read history have stated on this thread that it was a Southern issue more than a political Party issue.

I think a reminder is in order here. Robert Byrd, one time an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK and the longest serving member in the history of the Senate died a Democrat and it was not that long ago. Not all of the bigots who opposed desegregation switched parties after casting their votes against the Civil Rights Act as Democrats.

 

It is a mistake to condemn individuals for the mainstream political views that they held decades ago without considering them in the context of the time in which they lived - even if they switched parties or morphed into liberal Democrats.

 

People are to a large extent a product of their environment. Some change their social views, some don't, and some falsely claim that they have changed for political expediency. Most of us will never know the truth.

 

What the parties did 50 years ago is irrelevant, but I get tired of liberal Democrats trying to paint every Democrat who voted against the Civil Rights bill a Republican. The Republicans who voted to support LBJ's bill deserved credit for their actions then and they are no less deserving of praise today.

As have I.

 

To insinuate that the Dixiecrats of the early 1960's remotely resembles today's Democratic party is uninformed at best, and revisionist history at worst.

Revisionist history at its worst is to deny Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights bill the credit for supporting Johnson's legislation that they deserve.

I am not the slicer and dicer here. The Civil Rights Act passed because of strong support from the Republican Party and despite the strong opposition among Democrats. Both parties have changed over time. One can distance oneself and one's party all one wants from the party's past transgressions but it does not change history.

You're right. The Civil Rights Act of '64 passed because a coalition of GOP senators (27) and Democratic senators (44) voted to cut off debate in the Senate, after Humphrey and Dirksen reworked controversial language that the GOP objected to. I never argued that was not the case.

 

However, that does not negate the fact that the Republican candidate for president in '64, Barry Goldwater, sided with the Dixiecrats in voting against the Civil Rights Act.

You're right. The Civil Rights Act of '64 passed because a coalition of GOP senators (27) and Democratic senators (44) voted to cut off debate in the Senate, after Humphrey and Dirksen reworked controversial language that the GOP objected to. I never argued that was not the case.

 

However, that does not negate the fact that the Republican candidate for president in '64, Barry Goldwater, sided with the Dixiecrats in voting against the Civil Right Act.

Do you believe that Barry Goldwater was a racist? Do you have any clue as to why he opposed the bill without Googling it?

 

Why is it so important to you to demonize the Republican Party, whether it is today's GOP or the GOP of 50 years ago?