Should you have to pass a basic civics test to be able to vote?

[Run To State]

The Democrats probably want them to vote.

 

(A pre-emptive strike).

Probably?

 

 

 

Just thought I'd play along.

[Hatz]

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.

 

Dixiecrats even predate the 60's.

 

United States presidential election, 1948 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

At the Democratic Convention, Truman initially proposed a civil rights plank that moderated the radical support he had expressed at the NAACP in 1947 and to Congress in February 1948, with language that placed civil rights in the context of the Constitution. This proposal disappointed Northern liberals who wanted radical and swift reform, but also failed to placate the vigorous opposition from Southern conservatives, and other proposals emerged.[13][14] Former Texas Governor Dan Moody proposed a plank that instead supported the status quo of states' rights; a similar but shorter proposal was made by Cecil Sims of the Tennessee delegation.[15] On the liberal side, Wisconsin Representative Andrew Biemiller proposed a strong civil rights plank which was more explicit and direct in its language than Truman's convention proposal.[16] Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey led the support for the Biemiller plank. In his speech, Humphrey memorably stated that "the time has come for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!"

 

The passage of the civil rights platform caused some three dozen Southern delegates, led by South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond, to walk out of the convention. The Southern delegates who remained nominated Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia for the Democratic nomination as a rebuke to Truman. Nonetheless, 947 Democratic delegates voted for Truman as the Democratic nominee, while Russell received only 266 votes, all from the South.

[Hatz]

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.

 

I agree with the bolded.

 

Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and their ilk were "above" any party most of their careers. They were the voice of their culture more so than their party.

[Hatz]

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.

 

Who on this thread has said such? You even point out that you can't take a cultural position of 50 or 60 years ago and place it in today's evaluation. But you have to take that same concept and recognize that the issue of Civil Rights transcended political label and was cultural. Hubert Humphry was a staunch Democrat but one of the biggest "pushers" of Civil Rights. Why was he so opposite Thurmond? Culture.

[Twotoplace]

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?

Fast-forward to a news story from 2012:

 

"The Republican Party of Texas released its platform ... calling on Congress to repeal the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. 'We urge that the Voter [sic] Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized,' the platform reads."

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

Your turn.

[75center]

Not hardly TTP. Do us a favor and actually get away from msnbcmoveondothuffpothinkprogress.com and educate yourself. Why did they put it in the program? What was the exact wording of the statment immediately above the call to repeal? Better get back in the game, you have a lot of catching up to do.

[Mitch Rapp]

Who on this thread has said such? You even point out that you can't take a cultural position of 50 or 60 years ago and place it in today's evaluation. But you have to take that same concept and recognize that the issue of Civil Rights transcended political label and was cultural. Hubert Humphry was a staunch Democrat but one of the biggest "pushers" of Civil Rights. Why was he so opposite Thurmond? Culture.

Who always finds a way to bash Republicans and excuse and wrongdoing by the Obama administration and the Democratic Party? Answer that question and you will have the answer to your question.

 

I agree the the votes in 1964 broke along cultural lines. My guess is that many, like Goldwater, voted against the Civil Rights Act were not racists at all but were either just trying to represent their constituents or objected to the legislation on other philosophical grounds.

 

At the time of the vote, Wallace, Thurmond, and Byrd were racists, IMO. All three renounced their earlier actions and statements later in their political careers, but they were politicians, so whether the professed change of hearts were sincere or not, we will never know.

[Twotoplace]

Why did they put it in the program?

You tell me. Pretty much a no-brainer on my end. Probably has something to do with making it tougher for certain people to vote.

[75center]

You tell me. Pretty much a no-brainer on my end. Probably has something to do with making it tougher for certain people to vote.

 

Entirely agree. Like I said, you brought it up, do some research.

[Twotoplace]

Entirely agree. Like I said, you brought it up, do some research.

No need to read any tea leaves here. Party platforms speak for themselves. This is what happens when moderates quit showing up to precinct meetings because they're tired of getting shouted out.

[Mitch Rapp]

Fast-forward to a news story from 2012:

 

"The Republican Party of Texas released its platform ... calling on Congress to repeal the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965. 'We urge that the Voter [sic] Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized,' the platform reads."

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

Your turn.

You need no help in losing a debate all by yourself. Your constant drive to demonize Republicans and your relentless support of Obama, regardless of the scandal, policy blunder, or state of the economy undermines your credibility far beyond any single issue.

 

I have difficulty finding anything good to say about Obama and his political supporters, but I have no trouble criticizing the positions of the current GOP leadership. There are more bad apples than good ones in both parties. I find more good apples in the Republican barrel, but you seem to think that the Democratic barrel is full of ripe apples that have just been plucked from trees free of insects and worms.

 

Much of the Civil Rights Act was intended as a temporary measure to permanently reform the election systems in the south, where there were institutionalized measures in place before 1964 to suppress black votes. As states complied with the federal law, the intent was to treat all states equally under federal law. Texas Republicans were only demanding to be treated the same as all other states in this nation on election day.

[Twotoplace]

The Texas GOP wants to turn the clock back on the Voting Rights Act ... today ... present tense ... right now.

 

So go ahead and defend the platform position.

[Mitch Rapp]

The Texas GOP wants to turn the clock back on the Voting Rights Act ... today ... present tense ... right now.

 

So go ahead and defend the platform position.

:lol2:

[Twotoplace]

:lol2:

Disenfranchising voters is hardly a laughing matter. I wonder if Gov. Rick Perry will try to get the Texas position incorporated into the national platform.

[Mitch Rapp]

Disenfranchising voters is hardly a laughing matter. I wonder if Gov. Rick Perry will try to get the Texas position incorporated into the national platform.

I think that there was a thread on the Civil Right Act already. Southern states are now subject to the same laws that states in the rest of the nation are. That seems fair to me. If anybody is "disenfranchized," they will still have legal recourse to seek a remedy.

 

Just to be clear, I was not laughing at anybody who might be disenfranchised - the LOL icon was for your dogged persistence in demonizing one political party while portraying the other as pure as the driven snow.

 

Do you remember the New Black Panther Party members who stood in front of a Philly voting precinct with clubs in an attempt to intimidate white voters? Do you recall what their punishment was after agreeing to plead guilty? Me neither. Eric Holder dropped the charges.