What is wrong with you black people?
Can someone find me a single black person who isn’t a paid Republican token who was offended by Joe Biden’s comments? Didn’t think so. How anodyne were his words? Here’s the Fox News transcript:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Romney wants to let—he said in the first hundred days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street!
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boo!
BIDEN: They’re going to put y’all back in chains!
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Fox News could have edited this clip howsoever it pleased—and it chose to edit it in a manner that indicates that whatever Biden meant to say, he communicated it effectively to his intended audience. Note that the “Boo!” appears right where the “Boo!” should be, as does the “LAUGHTER.” It’d be really condescending for someone to come in and tell these people that they were booing at the wrong time. It’d be patronizing for someone to insist that they laughed at the wrong moment. It’d be …
SARAH PALIN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR/FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: There weren’t enough groans and boos when he said such a disgusting comment, really, especially to a demographic there that is—includes about 48 percent of the community being black Americans.
Of course it’d be her. What would “black Americans” do without the unwavering support of Sarah Palin? It’s the important question that’s on the lips of not a single solitary black person in America today.
What do you mean, “these people?”
Yes, Ms. Palin, why don’t those black Americans get off the Democrat plantation already?
I’m especially amused by the indignance shown by luminaries suchlike Jonah Goldberg and the Power Line goons, who have asserted in the past that income taxes and PPACA are just like bondage slavery.
The “liberal plantation” is by now, a hoary cliche.
But “Workers of the world unite! You’ve got nothing to lose but your chains” seems to have lost cliche status.
Still, it’s what comes to my mind when I hear Wall Street + chains.
Wow, this is extremely racist. Why does she assume BLACK people should be offended? Are only BLACK people able to be slaves? She should review some history books.
There are plenty of other slaves, so we should all be offended. So offended, in fact, that we will not vote Republican and be put back into chains by people pretending to give us our “fair” share.
But blacks are the real racists for not calling out Biden for his racist remarks!
Mitt Romney is such an oaf.
Biden’s remark, in his fake black folks voice, were pandering and embarrassing. He painted a target on himself. It was the perfect time for a light touch, a little suggestive mockery, perhaps an oblique reference. He left a pawn dangling, and they could have taken it and been up a pawn.
But oh, no. That’s not good enough. They go into screaming, over the top, howler monkey mode right away. Pop the clutch, yee-haw! Instead of taking the pawn, they blindly throw piece after piece at that side of the board, because, hoo boy, a Democrat made a gaffe, and it had something to do with black people! This is our big chance!
Watching conservatives try to play a race card is like watching a chimpanzee that’s gotten hold of a field researcher’s cell phone, and is trying to make the magic voices come out by imitating her gestures.
Plus Mitt Romney is totally down with the hippin’ & a-hoppin’ and the bippin’ & a-boppin’.
Nice puddin pops reference.
Mitt’s with it. Mitt’s hip. Don’t look at Mitt like he’s freakin’ Frankenstein.
No, I was talking about Kodak film.
Oh, and Mitt says remember, next Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
So, you know . . . if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.
Meanwhile, his running mate thinks that it’s up to you if you just want to do the bare minimum with the flair.
You know who else had piece of flair?
Jennifer Aniston?
Hitler
A piker.
I now understand why people say he leans to the left
Mitt totally expects to see the new cover pages on those TPS reports.
Gary Cole should play Mitt in the HBO movie.
Whether Biden’s comments were embarrassing or not, it’s hard to really imagine how the Romney campaign could have possibly made any hay out of it when a) Biden is generally a likeable politician and pretty good at selff-deprecation when it’s called for and b) he’s also running with Barack frickin’ Obama.
Obviously he has black friends; therefore, he’s not racist!
Sorry, had to.
I’m annoyed how people can be upset with these comments. Since when does alluding to slavery make you a racist? I’m pretty sure assuming someone who is anti-slavery is anti-black, is rather racist.
I don’t think there is really any uproar, I’m barely seeing anything about it. And I’m okay if this is the worst out-of-context thing Republicans can find to quote. Honestly, Romney has said far worse in a context where he meant EXACTLY how it sounded.
was an even money proposition for much of the 1800s
Yeah.
Am I the only one who’s amused by how excited the wingnuts are for the Biden-Ryan debate? The guy who stabbed you in the back to become your boss is going to show you a chart about why they just can’t spare more than a 1% raise for you this year, and Biden’s gonna say “ain’t that some bullshit?” and buy you a beer. And then the polls will move 0%.
That’s hilarious. Republicans should never–as a rule–get excited about debates. Unless zombie William F. Buckley rises from the grave and runs for president, we have a lock on the smarts. Not claiming it’s always prettily-packaged smarts, but if you’re talking about clear-eyed analysis of debates, WE ALWAYS WIN.
No one has ever claimed that Joe Biden is an intellectual titan within the Democratic Party, while this claim is made about Ryan all the time.
They sent their Goliath, we played rock-paper-scissors, and our guy is going to kick his ass anyway.
That’s how I see it, too. Though I think Joe Biden’s foot-in-mouth disease often belies his intellect.
Only thing I want to quibble with is characterizing Filliam Bif Wuckley as having “the smarts”. He had an unusual vocabulary and a high-falutin’ accent, neither of which he consciously acquired.
His columns and media appearances were full of the same kind of logical errors and idiotic concepts that grow like kudzu in the conservative media ecosystem today. (Watch that Firing Line program he did with Noam Chomsky. He doesn’t put forth a single argument that isn’t mendacious or just stupid, and several times he can’t follow the logic of what Chomsky is saying, even though Chomsky is using small words.)
Nah, he was running the exact same carnival game these other rubes are. He just had a more upscale booth.
He was as smart as a conservative can be, I guess. I mean, when all your ideas are horrible, there is a ceiling, clearly.
Well, smart-for-a-conservative boils down to an ability to remember which lie you told to who and when you told it. Buckley had that.
Unlike Mittens.
To his credit, though, he really did seem to enjoy like hell the circles Chomksy ran him around.
Of course, my cats seem to get a similar kick from the laser pointer, so I guess that’s one of those YMMV things.
Your really nice college landlord vs. the guy who puts a letter from his attorney under your windshield wiper if you park in his spot by accident.
We had very different college landlords.
You’re right – he’s more a “first place after college” landlord.
The kind of guy who lives in the ground floor of the three-decker and paints his foundation every other year. The kind who looks a little apologetic when he asks you if you can keep it down after 11 because people around here get up early for work.
Actually, Mittens reminds me of my first college landlord – the guy you never actually see, with only a PO Box, and a phone that is never answered, who keeps your security deposit because you damn kids broke the screen door. When there had never been any actual screen door in the first place.
I’m still pissed about that damn door.
My first college landlord wasn’t even going to let us skip a month’s rent when the sewer line backed up and soaked the rug.
He told us the city gave out free Hep B shots. But he wanted those checks.
You can mail a fish to a PO box, you know. Dry it off, put it in a brown kraft envelope (heavier paper) and make sure to mail it from the ‘local’ slot at the right post office…the day before a holiday weekend. With any luck it’ll have three days to ooze on all his other mail.
My first place out of college (only a few years ago) had a landlord who we had to call the health department on because our heater broke and we’d been without heat for over two weeks in February in Massachusetts (luckily it was a relatively mild winter) while he failed to get it fixed no matter how many times we called him. He was pissed at us for calling in the health department. He also kept a big chunk of our security deposit for BS reasons.
So yeah, more the Romney/Ryan type.
The way to deal with landlords like that is to calmy state, with no witnesses, that you will visit destruction tenfold the value of your deposit upon his property unless you get your full deposit back.
You’re doing it wrong. Paul Ryan will be made a fool of unable to answer any questions about his budget.
Then the media will report how the debates were extremely even, because no matter what Republicans do; Democrats are always just as bad.
Don’t you remember the hay they made when Hillary lapsed into a “how black people talk” voice?
C’mon, that’s not exactly a shining moment. And then to appear to be making such a pander-ey appeal as “They want to put y’all back in chains” – that clip isn’t going on the campaign’s homepage, that’s for sure.
Well, I’m from the South, and the last time I checked black folks weren’t the only ones to use the term “y’all.” In fact, they rarely use that word.
It’s not a big deal. Period.
Did you watch the clip, or did you just read the transcript?
I remember them having some fun with that, but I don’t remember them actually getting any hay made, no.
Let’s put this another way: how possible do you really think it is that Republicans could actually try to make something of this without having any of them say/do something at least twice as offensive to black people as Biden’s remarks could be construed as?
You’re not the audience.
Very, very unlikely. The chimpanzee is most likely to crack himself in the skull and end up running up a tree to get away. These people are oafs.
Disagree. The audience was not comprised entirely of black folks; there were plenty of white people there. Unless I missed something, he did not say “He wants to put just you black people back in chains.” He was referring to the entire audience. And what he said he did so in a folksy–ok, maybe a little silly–way. It wasn’t a big deal and only a FUCKING MORON would make note of it.
Note: I’m not calling Joe (from Lowell) a moron; I’m calling the wingnut, poo-flingers morons.
Did you see the clip, or just read it?
Because that fake voice he was speaking in is a big part of the effect.
I saw it. More than once. Not a big deal.
Not a big deal is a much better response than “…and only a moron would make note of it.”
The “when the sport happens” remark Romney made at the Olympics wasn’t a big deal, either. But, like this, it was a legitimate opportunity to get in a little tweak.
I can’t help how I feel. I think that anyone took note of it at all is ridiculous and sad. It’s taking “silly season” to a whole ‘nother level.
It’s that “whole ‘nother level” that’s the problem.
Nobody demanded that Mitt Romney be booted from the ticket for “looking out the backside of 10 Downing Street.” We pointed and laughed for five seconds, and got on with our lives.
They could have done the same thing with this – it’s perfectly good a minor “silly season” story. Ha ha, what a suck-up! Fine.
But no, they come out with “Take your campaign of hate and division back to Chicago!” With their fingernails digging into their palms and an expression of furious outrage. And they’re going to keep doing that for a week.
Until it doesn’t work, and they handle the next thing with similar adroitness. Oafs.
Can someone find me a single black person who isn’t a paid Republican token who was offended by Joe Biden’s comments?
I forget – is JenBob currently pretending to be a black man, or a white woman?
Well, there’s Artur Davis, who’s really more of a paid fake-Democrat.
Eh, we can just retaliate by calling you commies and socialists in front of Cuban or Russian Americans.
But to be clear, this is not the sort of liberal racism I’m concerned with. Your whitewashing of particular forms of racism out of American history is what perks my interest, like one guy trying to tell me now that Dixiecrats returned to Congress in 1949 as Independents.
Oy, where to begin.
I think you begin, as always, with Robert Byrd.
Damn you, Hogan.
Er, Holden. I blame the 1964 CRA for the error.
reminds me of another idiot commentator who tried to tell me Byrd was all for that.
You’re not too bad, Malaclypse. At least you acknowledge the truth. Thats why I provided you with the knowledge that comparative advantage doesn’t work in a liquidity trap. You can thank me later.
We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell ‘em stories that don’t go anywhere – like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ‘em. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you’d say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones…
God, you’re a dumb ass. You still miss the forest for the trees.
As I’m listening to Caro’s latest book on Johnson and reports of splits in the Democratic Party between conservatives and liberals in ’62-’63, I was briefly reminded how stupid you were.
Tell me about Lott, Phil Gramm, John Connolly, Haley Barbour, Jessie Helms, Richard Shelby, Newt Gingrich…hell, Robert Stacy McCain. In fact, explain how these conservatives were Democrats first and then became Republicans or stop posting your inanity.
I’ll wait patiently for you to ignore this and then post a roll call vote (rather than a committee vote or a cloture vote) from the one tree you found in the forest.
Or, hell, look up John Connolly and Ralph Yarborough and see if you can find out why both of them called themselves Democrats.
No, I’m looking at the forrest while you are cherrypicking. I’m saying the majority of segregationists stayed democratic.
A conservative dem is still to the left of a liberal republican. see here:
http://voteview.com/images/polar_house_means.jpg
Your belief that civil rights was about ideology means that the questionable ideologues are moderates who lean left.
I’ve made the cloture/inner procedural vote argument many times…to debunk the “Byrd voted for the 1968″ cra BS and the “Gore was pro-civl rights in ’65″ one, for example.
Here you see me using the ’64 cloture vote to debunk you:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/07/social-darwinism-for-the-21st-century/comment-page-1#comment-301947
This is one of the reason why DW-Nominate is so powerful. It takes every roll-call, including the often hidden procedural ones, into consideration. incidentally the NAACP used to do this in real time in “the Crises” magazine. very sophisticated stuff that is almost a per-curser to DW-Nominate.
This sort of analysis unmasks folks like the despicable Carl Hayden, Dem from Az…who appeared pro-civil rights on the final votes but collaborated with evil during the inner ones.
Its unclear why you are preaching this to me.
They were dems first because one critical aspect of Jim Crow was that it was not a democracy, but a one-party “state”. Thats one reason why party affiliation is more important than ideology. The other major reason is that segregationists averaged out to moderates who lean left.
So take Helms. he appears to have gone R b/c he was a conservative and because he didn’t want to split the racist vote with B. Everett Jordan in a 3-way Dem primary. The guy who defeated Jordan also voted against civil rights so you have to take that into consideration too. You are not doing that.
The ones who stayed democratic are not being counted by you. In contrast, I post neutral lists that include both.
Plus you include borderline cases like newt, but fail to mention Heflin or Zell Miller or Carter. You are cherrypicking.
Jimmy Carter was a segregationist!? He was a Democrat in Georgia….
Still waiting on Ests Kefauver and Ralph Yaborough and an explanation of why Haley Barbour never called himself a moderate….always a conservative…why John Connolly called himself a Conservative and not a liberal….
You have no answers to these question except to tell us that self-identified conservatives were actually men of the left.
Are you Jonah Goldberg? Was Hitler a man of the left too, Manju?
spell check estes kefauver
DW Nominate pins Yarborough as the most liberal of the 22 Senators from the 11 Confederate states (-0.4333) in 1964. By way of reference, the most liberal in the whole 88th Senate is Morse[D] -0.913.
I guess you chose him because Yarborough voted “Y” on the 64cra. This aligns with your worldview.
The problem is that Fulbright comes next (next most liberal Southern Senator in the 88th congress) and he voted no. He’s followed by Gore, Hill, Sparkman, Long…all on the liberal side (but to be fair, after Gore, they are just moderately so) and they also voted no.
Here are all 22 Southern Senators in 1964, from most liberal to most conservative:
-0.433 [D] YARBOROUGH
-0.368 [D] FULBRIGHT
-0.343 [D] GORE
-0.253 [D] HILL
-0.188 [D] SPARKMAN
-0.169 [D] LONG R.
-0.157 [D] JOHNSTON
-0.140 [D] WALTERS
-0.130 [D] SMATHERS
-0.073 [D] ELLENDER
-0.069 [D] TALMADGE
-0.066 [D] JORDAN B.
-0.027 [D] STENNIS
-0.013 [D] ERVIN
0.012 [D] RUSSELL
0.022 [D] HOLLAND
0.034 [D] MCCLELLAN
0.047 [D] EASTLAND
0.097 [D] ROBERTSON
0.208 [D] BYRD H.
0.321 [D] THURMOND
0.474 [R] TOWER
As you can see, a few were conservative (Tower, Thurmond), a few liberal (Fulbright, Gore), but they averaged out to be moderates who leaned left.
1. In the Southern context, conservative means those who want to conserve Jim Crow. Liberal, those who want to end it. In the larger US context, it’s associated with a market based ideology. Likewise, Paul Krugman and Fidel Castro may both identify as lefties, but they do not share the same ideology.
To be fair, movement conservatives have more in common with southern segregationists than Krugman has with Fidel, but liberalism has historically had a much more intimate relationship.
This partially explains why only 1 Democratic Senaotr who voted against the 64cra switched parties. I post a list of House members below. You will not be able to find a majority switch, not to mention a 100% switch as you claim. Hell, try to get to 10%. I challenge you.
1. DW Nominate doesn’t care how politicians self-identify. Some, like Carl Hayden, may claim to be pro-civil rights, but Nominate exposes them.
2. This works in reverse. A segregationist may say he believes in states rights, but if he’s voting for the New Deal, he is exposed as a hypocrite.
Another reason to play down the role of ideology.
I can understand why what the Nominate scholars (or even Malcolm X and the Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement) are saying sounds Jonah Goldbergish. But unlike Jonah, these are real scholars or folks with a deep investment in getting this history rights.
And after all, Thomas Jefferson owning slaves has a Jonah Goldgergish feel too. But its completely accurate.
What they are telling you is critical to understanding American History. The summary:
“During most of the period treated in this book, a single liberal-conservative dimension does an excellent job of accounting for how members vote…However, there is one issue area that clearly did not fit the standard liberal-conservative pattern –civil rights for African-Americans.
–”Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches,” by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University. (ch. 2)
Manju cites a book on income equality to buttress claims about historical civil rights voting…
Reminds of the scene in A Fish Caaled Wanda when Jamie Lee Curtis explains to Kevin Kline “The central tenet of Buddhism is not ‘every man for himself’. I know because I looked it up!”
Yarborough’s campaign slogan was “Let’s put the jam on the lower shelf so the little people can reach it.”
He was called liberal because civil rights. Way to ignore Connolly
Shorter Manju: I am determined to understand NOTHING about history or politics.
The book is about political polarization, with income inequality being a major cause of it. Civil Rights plays a major role in this narrative. But that’s neither here nor there because the DW-Nominate data predates the book.
The data is the most comprehensive available, and is not restricted to issues surrounding income inequality. The idea that Civil Rights (for Af-Ams) does not align to the left-right paradigm is a mainstream academic idea, though it hasn’t trickled down to the general public.
But the idea can easily be collaborated by looking at anecdotal roll calls. Also, I’ve provided quotes from Malcolm X and the Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement that align with what Dimension II is saying.
Ok, that aligns with what I said: “In the Southern context, conservative means those who want to conserve Jim Crow. Liberal, those who want to end it.”
Granted, this is how the words are used colloquially. Here is the issue:
If being a segregationist means that one is a conservative, then when one argues that segregationists are conservatives, one is merely arguing a tautology: segregationists are segregationists.
Its circular reasoning. One is not saying anything substantive about ideology. In order for the issue to align on ideological grounds, those who hold conservative positions on issues outside of race have to be more likely to support segregation. And those who hold liberal positions must be more likely to be pro-civil rights.
The data demonstrates that’s this is not the case for our representatives in the House and Senate. Thats why political scientists have removed civil rights from the left-right paradigm.
Civil Rights was not about ideology.
I don’t know much about Connolly but I assume he was a conservative segregationist so he naturally went Republican, like Strom Thurmond. i wouldn’t be surprised if Republicans rewarded him somehow.
I’m not sure why this needs an explanation.
In contrast, the liberal segregationists tended to stay Dem: Stennis, Sparkman, Wallace, Faubus, Fulbright, etc.
Dear sweet Cthulhu! Manju is certainly working his ass off to win the Dumbest Person on the Internets crown tonight.
Damn you, Hogan.
You know, as a straight white male I’ll take the blame for a lot of evil shit, but not this.
No, no…in this case, “Dixiecrat” refers specifically to those who supported the States Rights Democratic Party’s Presidential Nominee.
So even Talmadge wouldn’t qualify.
Feel free to make a Trent Lott retort.
Oh yeah, that guy. Who was that crazy son of a bitch, anyway?
Trent Lott
Trent’s a little young to have been the State’s Rights Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee in 1948, no? If only we could track down who that guy was and which party he wound up in.
That’s like asking the square root of a million. No one will ever know.
fair enough. We should do that.
Then we should track down all his fellow segregationist politicians and see where they ended up.
Once we get a grasp of these facts, then we can proceed.
Oy, where to begin.
With Robert Byrd, obviously. That story begins in nineteen-dickety-two. We had to say “dickety” because the Kaiser had stolen our word “twenty”. I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles. (the children laugh) What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that’s your problem! Now, I’d like to digress from my prepared remarks to discuss how I invented the terlet…
This is brilliant. Grandpa Simpson meme responses FTW.
Please read some general American political history of the past 50 years and come back sometime.
Oy, where to begin.
How about by pulling your head out of your ass for a while? This trivial and meaningless bullshit you obsess about is tiresome and irrelevant to anything in the 21st century. The modern Republican Party is the party of the racists and has been starting in the 1970s with Nixon’s Southern Strategy, full stop. Nothing you can say or any meaningless lists without context you can post will change any of that. Nobody has ever claimed that no Democrats were ever racists, only that the Democrats have been the primary champions of civil rights since the 1960s, which remains true.
I beleive what Haley Barbour (in regards to the Citizens’ Council) did was factually and morally wrong.
I’m only holding you to the same standard.
I feel confident that we all believe that the people who voted against the 1964 CRA were morally wrong.
Glad we can finally put that behind us.
I think I will even be comfortable saying that those who advocated for chattel slavery and secession were morally wrong, regardless of their party label at the time. Curse you, John C. Breckenridge!
I’m really glad that’s all over.
I want to be as comprehensive as possible: those people who took the conservative line on the rights of African Americans at any point in American history were wrong, regardless of party label.
Exactly.
Joe, you are not being as comprehensive as possible. Since those, who wanted to consevere segregation were in the minority, you need to include the enablers:
Barry Goldwater, John F. Kennedy, Carl Hayden…
you
I was on the PT-109 with John F. Kennedy. We were the first to discover his horrible secret.
JKF introduced a civil rights bill in 1963 and, because he was not a very good President, it went nowhere due to conservative opposition. How that makes him enabler is…well, unexplained
But he could have blown them to hell with his mighty bully pulpit, and he chose not to.
By the time of the March on Washington, MLK had come closer to Malcolm X’s view, who I would really recommend you getting familiar with. Malcolm’s insights turn the dry DW Nominate data into an understandable and compelling narrative. Anyway, back to JFK.
According to the Civil Rights Movement Veterans Website, MLK saw
“Collaboration.” Strong word.
Indeed some activists didn’t even think the 64cra was necessary. Veterans again:
The Veterans claim that Kennedy appeased the Segregationists. They say he publicly supported the Movement, but behind the scenes tried to undermine it. They cite ‘the “Seditious Conspiracy” case in Americus GA and the “Jury Tampering” Frameup in Albany GA.”‘
Read, “Kennedys Appease the Segregationists (August)”
http://www.crmvet.org/tim/tim63b.htm#1963rfk
———-
*This website is of and by Veterans of the Southern Freedom Movement during the years 1951-1968. It is where we tell it like it was, the way we lived it. With a few minor exceptions, everything on this site was written or created by Movement activists who were direct participants in the events they chronicle.
Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for the Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that “In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket.”[32]
In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: “I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one.” King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy in 1964, saying “Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964.”[33]
Malaclypse…Re:MLK
Your 1st paragraph doesn’t contradict the idea that by ’64 MLK had come to see JFK as a collaborator.
The 2nd is more problematic. But that occurred after the 54cra was passed and i too would vote for Kennedy over Goldwater, who made his stand crystal clear in 64.
Civil rights is arguably the most complex subject in American History, partially because it does not align to the left-right axis. So it comes down to the proverbial test of a first-rate intelligence: the ability to hold two opposing ideas…
So your quotes are noted, and I’m wrinting on the assumption that folks are familiar with them. But they don’t erase from history what the Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement are telling us.
’63
64cra
Those people who engage in sexism are wrong, regardless of their gender.
What’s the problem here, Joe?
Your analogy makes no sense, and your purpose is to obscure rather than to promote understanding.
I have a colleague who is turning his masters thesis on how Dick Lugar turned from an integrationist Republican in 1965 to a segregationist Republican by 1968, so he could be elected mayor of my fair city into an article for publication “before people forget how racists found a home in the Republican party.”
Manju supports Republicans and Republicans collude in the North and South to hold back African-Americans. No matter what he thinks of the early 60′s, HE is the one supporting today’s racism.
Give me a DW NOMINATE on your current support of racism, manju
I vote Dem, for the record.
A Democrat like you could go far on Fox. You should apply!
No, you don’t
Impossible, as 14 year olds cannot vote.
Impossible, as 14 year olds cannot vote.
A real 14-year-old would not still be wallowing in the 60s.
A real 14-year-old would not still be wallowing in the 60s.
He had to go back that far to establish a false equivalency. Since more recent history refutes is basic assertion, he is stuck there.
Excellent! I vote turkey club on wheat, myself!
It is unanimous and now Manju can just STFU about all this ancient history and be outraged by the current ongoing racism of the Republican Party.
So what do you want me to do next time a liberal on this blog claims that someone who voted against that bill renounced racism “prior to the attainment of higher office”?
Stay silent and leave it uncorrected?
Nah, you should quote it at least 50 times, with 3000-word rebuttals. That will
endear you to allconvince people.I think it is fair to quote until the person retracts.
Haley Barbour standard.
I think it is fair to quote until the person retracts.
Yes, that’s why you are so well-liked and respected.
I already pointed out I was mistaken when Byrd’s recanting occurred. I knew he left the KKK as a younger man and I assumed he recanted all of it. The fact he did a decade plus after the 1964 CRA in order to remain a democrat in good standing, while most segregationist, conservative Dems left the party tmbecome Republicans is –yet another– direct refutation of his point
Thank you. This is the clearest you’ve been. Its all I ask.
Its a little garbled, but you appear to be saying that a few years after 1974 he recanted his support for segregation, that most segregationists at that time had become republicans, and that the democrats required a renunciation in order to stay in good standing?
Is this what you are saying?
I vote for staying silent, since you’ve trolled the subject enough, have been shown to be wrong, and still troll the subject.
Did you know you were in a forest when you were examining that third oak tree from the right, Manju? Or, do you continue to ignore the forest?
Then how do you explain this:
http://voteview.com/images/House_Party_Means_46-111_2nd.jpg
I have no fucking idea what that is even supposed to be since there is no context or explanation, nor do I know how it was derived or if it means anything at all. Come back again when you learn how to construct an actual argument instead of randomly citing bullshit.
So Malaclypse, what am I supposed to do here?
I’ve posted this graph and explained what it is enough times that you scold me for being tiresome.
My instinct is to assume good faith and engage the person who want to know what it is. But if I do, I’m met with howls of protests.
i can explain how these scholsrs arrived at this conclusion, correlate it to scholars who study civil rights more conventionally, and we can engage in a convo.
But if I do that, I’m literally told that I’m “a retarded 14 year old”, over and over again though in different words…on a liberal blog, because I introduce high level academic research into a conversation.
yes, high level academic research shows that in 2010, Southern Democrats (who are almost without exception African American) have a worse record on Civil rights than generic Republicans.
My, my, that is some fine research.
Actually, academic research shows that in 2010, Southern Democrats VOTE DIFFERENTLY FROM REPUBLICANS on civil rights issues. Not that their record is worse, just that they’re polarized.
Oddly, Manju has practicing political scientists, American historians, and a cultural anthropologist with a specialty in race and ethnicity telling him he is full of shit and somehow they are wrong and the backward adolescent is correct.
Fair objection. I’ve explained this a few times before, for the record.
You are looking at Dimension II of DW Nominate. The primary dimension tracks most issues, but this one only tracks those that don’t align to a left-right paradigm.
So before 1930 its tracking funky issues like bimetalism.
But for civil rights, you only want to look at the late 1930s through the mid-1970s.
So these scholars are not saying that 2010 Southern Democrats are worse on civil rights.
So what you’re arguing is that Southern Democrats and Republicans differ on some axis, and that during the middle of the last century that axis corresponds to civil rights votes? That graph only appears to support the first point.
Psuedonym –
It is totally unfair to ask Manju to actually understand the data he is presenting as proof of his insane delusions.
So Malaclypse, what am I supposed to do here?
Keep fucking that walrus, which is your only discernible skill and what you will do anyway. You post a chart which lacks any information as to what it is measuring or the units of measure without any explanation of what it is and think that is evidence or an argument? My stoner freshmen can do batter than that.
What I find MOST useless about the graph is that it completely elides who was a Republican and who was a Democrat, and what constituted the polarization. For example, in the 112th Congress, 42 of the 193 Dems are African American while 2 of the 242 Republicans are African American.
Gosh, do you think the parties might have different views on civil rights issues?
This stupid graph just measures the average “polarization” by region and by party on roll-call “civil rights” issues, without any consideration for what the actual votes were[*]. So if at some point the Dixiecrats flipped over to being Republicans or were replaced by pro-civil-rights Dems (which we know happened to a great extent), the polarization stays, but the valence has changed.
But ROBERT BYRD, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HIM?
[*] And without any consideration for the use of retrograde Gilded Age economics as a tool to implement anti-minority policies given the disproportionate effect of those policies on racial minorities, most particularly African Americans and Latinos.
Oh, look, the authors even say that the question of civil rights at the federal level has been subsumed into so-called economic differences because most of those big formal votes have been taken:
This is neutral academic-speak for Lee Atwater’s explanation:
And of course this doesn’t include anything about the recent state-level voter suppression efforts (which are “pure” civil rights), because those aren’t federalized, nor about what comes up or doesn’t come up for roll-call votes when different parties control the legislature.
It was apparent that Manju was an idiot before, but now it’s pretty much incontrovertible that he’s an extraordinary idiot.
Why? I’ve mentioned the limits of Dimension II before.
Also, notice that you called the graph stupid when you didn’t like what it appeared to say. But now you use it when it appears to confirm your beliefs.
So does this mean you agree that dems have long been left of Repubs (dimension I) and that northern ones were worse on civil rights than republicans?
No, you dunce. It means that I think the graph is pointless and stupid (CERTAINLY the way you’re trying to use it) because it doesn’t measure anything valuable relative to the world.
Somewhere along the X axis, in the actual world, the valence of which party was pro-civil rights and pro-equality flipped, but the graph just shows “o hai, the parteez disagreez”.
And of course, the authors say in their prefatory notes that not only to the parties disagree, but that disagreement has shifted to the the use of economic policy (bound up in the race and racism of modern conservatism) to make sure that certain disfavored minorities stay disfavored.
In other words, your obsession with proving that “Democrats” once had a shitty record on civil rights and equality and “Republicans” had a less shitty record without any actual reference to the real world is SHOWING THAT YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE IDIOT WHO UNDERSTANDS ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT THE REAL WORLD AND IS TRYING AS HARD AS HE POSSIBLY CAN TO STAY AN IDIOT WHO UNDERSTANDS NOTHING ABOUT THE REAL WORLD.
Further, it pretty much shows that any time spent on you doing anything other than mocking you is wasted time.
Your confusion is understandable, as I said to timb when he raised it on this very thread. I also had similar concerns and therefore contacted Professor Poole for an explanation.
As I’ve mentioned before, you only want to focus on 1935 to the mid 70′s. During this era you can be pretty damn sure that the southern Dems are segregationists. Those voting close to them are collaborators.
Before that, Dimension II is tracking bimetalism. After, its tracking very little and becomes irrelevant. Only Dimension I matters now, so you should not be reading anything into the 112th Congress. They are not saying that Dems are worse on civil rights for Af-Ams today.
This is not because the parties flipped on the issue. Republicans as a group never opposed it. This is easy to collaborate with anecdotal roll calls. Not a single republican opposed the 2006 Voting Rights Act. Even Strom Thurmond supported the ’82, ’88, and ’91 cras.
As did many of his fellow Senators who opposed civil rights in the 60′s, all lifelong dems like Stennis, Ervin etc. And this holds true even though most died unrepentant segregationists (in my book you have to publicly repent before we consider revoking the label).
The next level down (politicians who had not risen to prominence in the 1960s) follow a similar path. Dems like Zell Miller and Howell Heflin, or R’s like Lott. They may have had racists paths but by the time they hit the senate they are not voting against civil rights. The ones who still do (Helms) are too few to affect the mean.
Manu, you are an ignorant ass and waste of perfectly good pixels.
Uh, I am not a statistician or mathematician, and I don’t even play one on TV, but from what I can understand it looks like DW-NOMINATE is using a principal components analysis, meaning that the different dimensions are by definition linearly uncorrelated. Thus the so-called “Civil Rights” dimension, the second component, even if it did correspond closely to civil rights votes, doesn’t measure voting on civil rights per se, but the residual differences on civil rights votes once the first component, i.e. the liberal/conservative axis, has already been accounted for. So that graph isn’t showing that republicans are more pro-civil-rights than democrats even in the mid-century period when the dimension corresponded best to civil rights votes; all it’s showing is that a lot of republicans were more pro-civil-rights and democrats less pro-civil-rights than one would expect had civil rights votes followed the pattern of liberal/conservative issues. It doesn’t say anything about the absolute positions of the parties on civil rights.
I don’t really understand this or the math behind it, but I’m sure someone here must, and it seems like this completely undercuts Manju’s assertion that the graph and DW-NOMINATE scores prove that Democrats on average were more racist than Republicans, historical facts about particular individuals notwithstanding.
And now my brain hurts from trying to imagine rotating hundred-dimensional point clouds. This is a hell of a way to spend a Friday night. I hate you all.
Pseudonym, prior to reading “polarized america” i had never thought that Repubs could come out superior either. I just thought Dems were worse than advertised once one takes the inner procedural votes into consideration.
Dimension I is what I usually post here, because the idea that the Dixiecrats were conservatives or that liberal republicans were were to the left of them is easily seen as bunk by looking at famous roll-calls.
But Dimension II is much harder to intepret. I’ve contacted Prof Poole in regards to it and tossed the idea at some political scientists, but no one has debunked it yet, expect of course the idea that 2012 southern dems could be worse on civil rights, which makes no sense.
I’ll try to further vet this out on the Monkey Wrench, but Prof Poole suggested: “Read our book “Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting.” It has all the details (there is a second edition: “Ideology and Congress”).”
I haven’t got to that yet.
Maybe the most useful information to determine what dimension II means would be to list the votes that correspond closest with it. That still doesn’t address the issue of linear independence though. I guess the relevant information would be the degree of correlation between civil rights votes and both of the first two dimensions. It’s been ages since I’ve used R at all though, and I was never that good at it.
It’s important to recognize that the different dimensions don’t actually correspond to any exact issues or ideological differences, just the combinations of issues and votes that produce the maximal variance once all preceding dimensions have been taken into account. I’m only really familiar with this type of analysis from studying PageRank, which is basically an approximation of the primary eigenvector of the web’s directed adjacency matrix if I remember correctly. Math is hard, let’s go shopping!
I prefer doing that over Dw-Nom, or at least as a complement.
On civil rights, the results look predictable…southern dems oppossed, repubs and N.dems for. On the more famous final votes, you get 1 or 2 R’s joining with the Southern Dems (senate). So you’d expect Dim II to show R’s slightly closer to S.Dems than N.Dems are. Yet, its flipped.
The inner procedural votes might explain this, and I’ve certainly seen some evil stuff there (kennedy in ’57).
But when you look at individual DII scores, it can be very hard to figure out. I think this is because most senators go a lifetime thru at least 2 eras, so its tracking different stuff. There are some score that allow you to isolate more, but not totally.
Anyway, civil rights is a history that is well in play. i am often struck by how folks within the movment speak about folks we are taught to be heros. The NAACP used to track these produral votes in detail too.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, Dimension Ii runs similar to 1. There is an ideal point, so i would think they are tracking how close Repubs and Dems are voting with Segregationists, at least thru the civil rights era. But maybe some other issue pop in to throw things off?
Republican Free Market Jeebus fucking a dinosaur! The little bastard not only does not know how to read a chart, he does not even bother to read (or at least cannot comprehend) the article. I take it back, he is not a slow 14 year old, he is a retarded 8 year old.
Actually, since they specify “civil rights”, the graph appeared to everyone to support the 2nd point but for its entire history.
But once you get into the scholarship, civil rights is only from 1935 to the 1970′s. After that, the graph is useless.
It does take some interpretation, but the main graph is straightforward:
http://voteview.com/images/polar_house_means.jpg
Republicans have long been to the right of Dems, including their White Supremacist faction.
IOW, even on your stupid terms, the graph is deceptively labelled and entirely useless except to willfully-ignorant walrus-fuckers like you.
See, dumbass, the rest of us know that “Democrats” 40 or 50 years ago were not great on race. THIS IS NOT A SECRET. So your masturbatory obsession with ROBERT BYRD and specific individuals in power 50 years ago is just that — masturbation. Back in the real world, after the post CRA realignment, Republicans are the party of race-baiting and have been for thirty years.
So just STFU already — the problem isn’t that you’re stupid. It’s the unbelievable amount of effort you put into STAYING stupid.
Didn’t witness the ’08 dem prez primary, huh?
It’s the unbelievable amount of effort you put into STAYING stupid.
You mean the one that nominated the black guy?
Actually they have been the party of race baiting for 40 years given Nixon’s Southern Strategy, but do not ask Manju to actually confront reality.
incorrect. You should go back further. at least to goldwater.
No, Nixon is the point where race baiting became party policy. Conservatives in both parties had consistently opposed civil rights and integration consistently long before that (see W. F. Buckley’s infamous op-ed in the National Review from 1954), but the Republicans were not uniformly conservative at that point (or really until the 1980s).
If they are “conservative” because they opposed integration, then you are merely deploying a tautology: “segregationists in both parties consistently opposed integration”. You are trapped in a circle. You are not telling us anything substantive about ideology.
In order to correlate segregation to “conservatism” you have to look at issues outside of civil rights. Buckley is a good argument, but he is only one datapoint and he allegedly recanted before Byrd’s alleged recantation. And the latter is a liberal.
“consistently” also fails because Goldwater, no doubt a conservative, had a moderately pro-civil rights record prior to attempts to take the South. LBJ even tried to use this against him (during the 64 election and in the south) to give you one datapoint of the dems continued “southern strategy”.
And finally, you have to deal with the data tndicating that the segregationists in the mean segregationist in the House and the Senate waas a moderate who leaned left.
DW-Nom dimension I is straightforward, often used by left-leaning commentators like Krugman and Nate Silver, and there is little disagreement to what it’s measuring. The only ideology in question then is moderatism.
If they are “conservative” because they opposed integration, then you are merely deploying a tautology:
It is not tautological, it is definitional, which is different. You can argue that prior to the 1950s, and certainly in the early 1900s, that being a segregationist did not map onto being a conservative, but after 1954, it clearly does. You also make the common error of assuming that conservatism is a unitary quality, which it is not always. Many Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s were socially moderate or mildly liberal, but strongly conservative on economics and foreign policy (Rockefeller for instance). In the 1960s, and to a large extent in the 1950s, the segregationists were broadly socially conservative (not just on this one issue), and conservative on foreign policy. They were more mixed on economic issues, with some strongly conservative and others adopting a more populist position, but could not be described as liberal in this regard (they opposed unions and many other elements of workers’ rights).
Well, I’d argue that that’s just the label they give the graph; the graph itself doesn’t actually provide any support for the label, since it’s just a graph of the second principal component and not a graph of civil rights votes. Wouldn’t looking at a graph of civil rights votes be more relevant?
Yes, this is my primary argument. Folks here protest that it shows party votes but not votes by ideology, so i’ve had to go to DW Nominate for that.
But DW-NOMINATE dimension II is labeled “civil rights” a posteriori, not a priori, and is constructed to be linearly independent of the primary liberal/conservative axis, so what it shows is that (a) Democrats show more variance on an axis that roughly corresponds to civil rights than they do on other issues, and (b) since both northern and southern Democrats lie above the Republicans on the second dimension, the primary dimension labeled “liberal/conservative” does not in fact capture the essence of the difference between the two parties.
I mean, I honestly don’t have enough knowledge of the era to make a judgement on the votes I know about, I just think that DW-NOMINATE II doesn’t say much.
None of which I think anyone disagrees with, ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAST CENTURY. But Manju keeps fucking this walrus like it proves something, and demanding that everyone tell the conversion story of every individual southern conservative Democrat from 1964 or else something something Southern Strategy didn’t happen something something.
All of which tells us exactly fuck-all about Democrats and Republicans today, and even less about liberal vs. conservative as actual ideological camps in the United States.
If, for example, you’re a tribalist who is willing to vote for government largesse only to people in your own tribe, that’s not very liberal. That’s George Wallace’s domestic policy in 1968 and current Republican domestic policy. So the only interesting thing that can be learned here (not that it’s anything that Manju is teaching, nor that it’s really very original) is (a) conservatives then and now continue to view economic policy as a way to reward their tribe and punish not-their-tribe and (b) the party labels mean something different now than they did in the middle of the last century. Now, the conservatives are all in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party has as a matter of overall policy chosen to be the party which panders to the prejudices of white people. Which, as a party, they can do, because the seats in the south that used to belong to conservative Democrats now pretty much belong to conservative Republicans.
Yes, I meant my normal fare is to look first at Civil Rights legislation straight up, ie roll calls) then take a look at the Dimension I scores of those involved.
Ok, I’m just noting that I happen to know next to nothing about the voting patterns of the different parties on civil rights issues in the middle of the 20th Century, whereas I know about slightly more than next to nothing about linear algebra, and the part I slightly understand seems to indicate that DW-NOMINATE II doesn’t say anything about the voting patterns of different parties on civil rights issues except in reference to DW-NOMINATE I.
And maybe it was a bad idea to get in the middle of this argument.
No, glad u stopped by. This is very cutting edge stuff and i’ve been trying to vet this out with as many folks as possible.
I’m pretty comfortable with D-I, and that says a lot about ideology, but I just really started using the D-II stuff after running it by some folks..as I said, I usually just go with straight roll calls correlated to D-I.
I’ll try to put it together and maybe email another one or the authors besides poole (don’t want to annoy him again).
This is very cutting edge stuff
For values of “cutting edge” = “48 years old.”
Roy Orbison sure is avant-garde, I tell you. Bleeding edge of surfing the moment, he is. Just like Manju.
But once you get into the scholarship, civil rights is only from 1935 to the 1970′s. After that, the graph is useless.
So you admit that I am right when I say that the racists left the Democratic Party beginning in the 1970s.
The majority of the racists who are being measured by these real scholars of history, died as lifelong dems.
So yes, when you die, you technically leave the Democratic Party. And they all died.
If you do indeed know the history, then I object to the way you continuously phrase things to whitewash what really happened.
And that is why Reagan, while still a Democrat, kicked off his campaign for President with a speech on state’s rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Because he knew who the real racists were in 1980 – Manju’s imaginary friends.
Nobody is white washing anything here, you are simply to stupid to understand what is being said and the broader patterns in the data and are more concerned with muddying the water than the truth. Nobody here has denied that up through the 1960s, the Southern Democrats were strongly racist. The racists were driven from power in the Democratic Party after 1968 (whether or not they formally left the party), though it did not happen overnight, as represented by the party’s consistent promotion of civil rights from that point on. From 1972 onward, many nominal Democrats in the South and elsewhere began consistently voting for Republicans in national elections (these are the so-called Reagan Democrats) as a result of Nixon’s Southern Strategy. By the 1980s they increasingly became Republicans and today the South is solidly Republican as a result. You obsess over the trees and fail to see the forest, which is a basic and juvenile analytic error.
The continued presence of some racists in the Democratic Party after 1970 or even after 1980 is entirely irrelevant and insignificant, as it has no impact on the party’s agenda or policies. Likewise, none of the racists/segregationists is or was a “liberal”. They were at most populist politicians. Neither party was ideologically unified prior to 1980, and the Democrats still are not. What has happened is that the Republicans have driven out most of their moderates and social liberals. There is still a strong (indeed dominant among the politicians) moderate conservative (socially moderate-liberal and otherwise conservative) wing of the party, perhaps best represented by Bill Clinton.
Likewise, your Dimension II upthread, as Holden and Pseudonym have pointed out, does not in fact measure racism or opposition to civil rights. It measures something else, which remains unidentified, to which racism and opposition to civil rights appear to contribute from 1935-1970. That the differences remain consistent before and after that time indicates the this is a minor component of what it measures. As others have said, your graph is basically useless. Until you can understand the fundamental facts of American politics and history, you have nothing to say in this conversation.
the racists who are being measured by these real scholars of history
i.e., twenty-some US senators.
No, I published the DW Nom House data too.
Last time you objected along these lines:
I supplied you with a much longer list. Now you return with the same objection.
Yes, i understand… you want to operate from a history that erases Wright and Byrd while simultaneously keeping Neshoba.
But that’s not reality.
you want to operate from a history that erases Wright and Byrd
You really are a fucking idiot if you think this. JenBob levels of weapons-grade stupidity, that comment is.
Indeed, Hogan, this is what even a lib-dem had to say at time (from the Time article):
I suspect the very words you quoted (“ethnic purity”) are the ones that led Jackson to go there.
Jesse Jackson
Ah yes, Jesse Jackson, a man never given to hyperbole or overdramatization, especially in the ’70s.
But, unlike the n-word, its a dogwhistle because it can be separated from race. Jefferson and Obama have used the concept in non-racist ways.
“Black intrusion”, “alien groups”, “natural inclination”, and “ethnically homogeneous” are much harder if not impossible to separate.
So Carter *wasn’t* using dog whistles. Got it.
As late as the 1980′s, Dems installed both a House Leader and a Senate Majority leader who voted against the 64cra. Both Southern and I’m sure one of them had not publicly repented. never looked into the other.
Like Strom Thurmond, both would proceed to vote for some civil rights renewals, but since I don’t forgive Strom I’m not going to forgive Dems who behave similarly.
There is no name for this particular southern strategy, tho I have no objection to you using Reagan. I would add, however, that Carter had an even louder dogwhistle (and yes, I can document this)
Oh goodie, we’re back to Robert Byrd!!! Nobody could have seen that coming.
Carter had his dog whistles, but which one was “even louder” than talking up states’ rights in Philadelphia, Mississippe?
You mean you don’t remember Carter calling Ford a Kenyan socialist, and running on a “take our country back” platform?
It’s 1976, and this is a dogwhistle aimed at whites afraid of the 1968cra (Fair Housing):
It’s behind a paywall now, but maybe you can google your way thru:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,914056,00.html?artId=914056?contType=article?chn=us
If you can’t get thru, Bob Herbert references it here. This is actually the explanation for the above dogwhistle:
Herbert is wrong about the apology. He apologized for words, like “black intrusion”, but not the idea behind them. (the idea behind the words is another story…but chew on that for now)
the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods
And you consider that even louder than Reagan’s? You should get your hearing checked.
“States Rights” as used by Reagan was a racist dogwhistle. But, unlike the n-word, its a dogwhistle because it can be separated from race. Jefferson and Obama have used the concept in non-racist ways.
“Black intrusion”, “alien groups”, “natural inclination”, and “ethnically homogeneous” are much harder if not impossible to separate.
Of ther 92 Southern Democratic representatives who voted against the 1964 CRA, 8 were still in office in 1980. Of the six Southern Democratic representatives who voted for the 1964 CRA, two were still in office in 1980. In the years between 1964 and 1980, the total number of Southern Democratic representatives went from 98 to 71, at a time when many Southern states were adding districts.
Golly! You mean my statement that the segregationists were driven out of the Democratic Party and increasingly joined the Republicans in the 1970s was actually right? Imagine that!
So, going back to the original context..ie, the reason why you asked me to expand the list, how many of those 92 segregationists became republicans?
how many of those 92 segregationists became republicans?
Who cares? The people who voted for them did, as shown in Hogan’s post, which is far more important and central to this debate. Yet another example of your inability to see broader pattens because of your obsession with minor details. You simply do not understand what you are doing or know what you are talking about.
You simply do not understand what you are doing
I disagree. Manju the one-trick
ponytroll knows precisely what he is doing.timb does. you do. See here:
Here, you clearly think it important to look at all the Segregationist Senators and Congressmen and see how they ended up…as Republicans or as lifelong Dems.
So I’ve provided you with that data. You respond by calling me “boy” and moving the goalposts.
And I’m willing to move them, once we’ve agreed on the data. The hew goalpost is even more complex than the old one. But luckily, we have (left-leaning) scholars (who crunch a lot of data) to help us out.
I will be referencing this data once you are prepared to discuss.
Number of times the word “boy” appears in this thread: two. Once when JFL used the phrase “hoo boy” and once when Manju said people called him a name.
i didn’t say he called me “boy” on this thread, thoug he used a euphemism here
Here, you clearly think it important to look at all the Segregationist Senators and Congressmen and see how they ended up…as Republicans or as lifelong Dems.
No, I was simply responding to your narrow bullshit point and my larger argument in that thread had nothing to do with members of congress, but with Dixiecrats as a whole. Again you need to go to night school and learn how to read.
i didn’t say he called me “boy” on this thread, thoug he used a euphemism here
I did not call you “boy”. I have said that, based on your style of argumentation and presentation of evidence, it is likely that you really are a rather dim 14 year old. Certainly that is your intellectual level.
the reason why you asked me to expand the list
The reason I “asked you to expand the list” was that you were generalizing about segregationists based on the party registration of approximately 22 people. Expanding the list to 120 or so doesn’t really help; your sample of segregationists is still much too small to build generalizations on, given that there were millions of segregationists and the vast majority of them never served in the House or Senate. Hence the joke about “the light is better over here.”
The record shows that after I listed these politicians:
You said:
“left politics”. you said, in the context of a list of segregationist politicians. So I responded by summing up the historical record:
At which point, you complained that my list did not include enough politicians:
“senators”, “representatives”.
it would be awfully stupid of you to ask for more segregationists senators and representatives if you knew that most of these politicians had not switched parties.
You are not that stupid. You were just ill-informed.
So, after I informed you of the truth, you decided that the very metric you once thought extremely important was now irrelevant…because it produced a conclusion contradicting your prejudices.
So, you moved the goalposts to the electorate, apparently unaware that elected officials represent an electorate.
You said:
most [Dixiecrats] either shifted to the GOP or left politics after 1968.
“left politics”. you said, in the context of a list of segregationist politicians. So I responded by summing up the historical record:
hardly any switched parties, they ran on presidential tickets with FDR, Adlai, and JFK, and some were liberal icons.
They ran on presidential tickets with FDR, Adlai and JFK after 1968? How did I miss that?
You simply do not have the grasp of the facts necessary to come to this conclusion:
Opinons that stem from flasehood like this are worthless.
Once you get a grip of the facts, then we can have an intelligent discussion about the southern shift, including the racist southern strategy.
Manju, as always, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and would not know a fact if it bit you on the ass. I am now officially done even responding to your absurd bullshit until you apply equal tenacity and vigor to attacking the overt rampant racism at the heart of the modern Republican Party and address the fact that all civil rights legislation since 1960 was introduced by Democrats, who also pushed it through Congress, while Republicans have consistently proposed legislation to roll back civil rights protections and pushed overtly racist voter suppression and “anti-immigrant” laws.
Have you come to this thread, where nobody has yet mentioned you, to go on about a mistake somebody, who has not posted in this thread, made in another thread last week? Really?
I’m not up in arms over Biden’s comment.
This is the sort of statement that leads Conservatives to say “liberals are the real racists”. Folks here often say that sarcastically to me.
But I don’t really go there. I search out and destroy conventional racism. I used the Prodigal quote from last week as an example. Read it. Its pathetic, and has no place on a liberal blog. I know you are one of the few who know.
But yes, with that qualifier, I did indeed do the things you are accusing me of doing.
And nothing you have ever posted has any place in any intelligent conversation. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about and continuously spew meaningless bullshit to try to prove that there is no difference between the parties, which is simply not true.
I’m more impressed with his ability to beclown himself as the arbiter of “what belongs on a liberal blog.”
Hell, I am a liberal and I don’t think I can be the judge of that. Imagine being the 12 kinds of stupid Manny is and claiming it.
So, in addition to flinging the same poo like a howler monkey, not knowing anything about realignment politics of the last 50 years, never hearing the phrase “the Southern Strategy” (even after little Kenny Mehlman apologized for using it), and being unable to discern the difference between party affiliation and actual politics, we now know Manju lacks self-awareness.
On a liberl blog, you should not be able to say that no segregationist became a republican without getting your ass handed to you. These, 3 statements from you are morally equivalent to that one:
They are demonstratively false and all happen to whitewash racism out of American History.
They are all actually true and I have cited over and over again the names of the attaches, aides, and young hangers on who called themselves conservatives, supported segregation, and switched parties.
Your ignorance of how politics works would baffle my 5 year old
You are lying. Your first statement was:
Below, list of every southern dem in the House who opposssed the 1964cra. Show me that all switched. Hell, show me that most switched. Hell, show me that more than 10% switched.
AL George Andrews
AL Carl Elliott
AL Kenneth Roberts
AL George Grant
AL Robert Jones
AL George Huddleston
AL Albert Rains
AL Armistead Selden
AR James Trimble
AR Wilbur Mills
AR Oren Harris
AR Ezekiel Gathings
FL Robert Sikes
FL Don Fuqua
FL Donald Matthews
FL James Haley
FL Paul Rogers
FL Charles Bennett
FL Dante Fascell
FL Sam Gibbons
FL Albert Herlong
GA Robert Stephens
GA James Tuten
GA Charles Weltner
GA George Hagan
GA John Flynt
GA John Pilcher
GA John Davis
GA Elijah Forrester
GA Carl Vinson
GA Phillip Landrum
KY Frank Stubblefield
KY Frank Chelf
KY John Watts
KY William Natcher
LA Otto Passman
LA Joseph Waggonner
LA Theo Thompson
LA James Morrison
LA Felix Hébert
LA Thomas Boggs
LA Gillis Long
LA Edwin Willis
MI John Lesinski
MO William Hull
MO Paul Jones
MS John Williams
MS William Winstead
MS Thomas Abernethy
MS William Colmer
MS Jamie Whitten
NC Roy Taylor
NC David Henderson
NC Ralph Scott
NC Basil Whitener
NC Herbert Bonner
NC Lawrence Fountain
NC Harold Cooley
NC Horace Kornegay
NC Alton Lennon
NV Walter Baring
OK John Jarman
OK Victor Wickersham
SC Albert Watson
SC William Dorn
SC Lucius Rivers
SC Robert Ashmore
SC Robert Hemphill
SC John McMillan
TN Robert Everett
TN Thomas Murray
TN Joseph Evins
TX Ovie Fisher
TX Robert Casey
TX George Mahon
TX Lindley Beckworth
TX James Wright
TX Omar Burleson
TX Graham Purcell
TX Olin Teague
TX John Dowdy
TX William Poage
TX John Patman
TX Joe Kilgore
TX John Young
TX Joe Pool
TX Walter Rogers
TX Herbert Roberts
VA William Tuck
VA Julian Gary
VA Porter Hardy
VA William Jennings
VA Thomas Downing
VA John Marsh
VA Watkins Abbitt
VA Howard Smith
Shorter Manju: I will now flog Dead Horse #2.
If people keep repeating the falsehood, it isn’t dead.
We can’t proceed in the discussion until the facts are accepted. Since timb keeps asserting falsehoods to be true, I have to keep repeating the facts.
And that is why you are well-liked and respected. Because of your love of 50-year-old facts.
Hey, I’m really looking forward to this new show staring Elizabeth Mongomery as a young witch in modern suburbia. How about you?
That Dick York will be a keeper, I tell you what.
Manju, you ignorant slut!
I’ve mentioned it many times, including on this thread.
You asked me to discuss this and I have at length, using the most comprehensive and respected academic data available…which I got from Paul Krugman. Summary:
http://voteview.com/images/polar_house_means.jpg
No, we asked you to shut the fuck up about this since you know absolutely nothing about it.
There is room for debate on ideology. But you don’t even have a grasp on party identity. Another example:
Only 3 Republicans Senators voted “no” on the 68cra. Of the 17 Dems Senators who voted “no”, none became Republican.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1968/s346
You simply do not have enough of a grasp of the facts to be talking about Civil Rights, and especially to be talking about it in the manner in which you do.
Manju, you ignorant Republican slut, I am a fucking expert on race and ethnicity. I have been studying and teaching it for more than twenty years, which is likely longer than you have been alive. I lived through all of the history you are discussing. I lived with Jim Crow and segregation and attended segregated schools. I have marched in civil rights protests. You have no fucking idea what the fuck you are talking about. Now go crawl back under your rock and shut the fuck up.
Argument to authority. logical fallacy.
The assertions i’ve repeatedly highlighted from you are demonstratively false. They do not even concern the more complex and subjective issue of ideology.
You don’t even have the objective history correct. You are not qualified to offer your opinions on this subject because you do not have a grasp of the facts.
You are not qualified to offer your opinions on this subject because you do not have a grasp of the facts.
LOL! You are not qualified to judge that as your inability to understand and analyze the data have repeatedly been demonstrated by multiple people.
You have seized on some casual and admittedly imprecise comments in blog posts, taken totally out of context, to reinforce your own delusions, ignoring the larger patterns that my comments referenced.
How many pieces of civil rights legislation have the Republicans put forward since 1950? None. Every piece of civil rights legislation was introduced and pushed through congress by Democrats. The Republicans in contrast have continuously attempted to repeal and roll back civil rights protections since 1968, while no Democrat has introduced such legislation. A large portion of the Republicans who voted for the 1968 VRA undoubtedly did so just to ratfuck the Democrats since they knew, as LBJ said, the the Dems would lose the South for a generation if it passed. Notably, Nixon initiated the Southern Strategy shortly afterward. You simply do not have any analytical or critical capacity as has been repeatedly shown in this thread alone.
I search out and destroy conventional racism.
Wow, that didn’t sound at all smug and self-important.
More accurately, he searches out and destroys comment threads with his nonsense.
Also too, imaginary threats to free speech posed by Catharine Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin!
guilty. but given the vomit I’m cleaning up here, i can live with myself.
And one more thing…I never once washed my hands. That’s your policy, not mine.
“Mr. Manju STOP Your calls and letters are becoming nuisance STOP If you do not cease I will be forced to pursue legal action STOP Signed Boris Karloff, Hollywood, California.”
Well, if you would quit spewing all over the threads, you would not have to keep cleaning them up, now would you?
Unless your interest is made of coffee beans, I think you mean *piques* your interest.
I’m interested in coffee beans, and peaks.
“…like one guy trying to tell me now that Dixiecrats returned to Congress in 1949 as Independents…”
Only just now saw this nonsense from you, and wow. You really can’t read, can you? Legislators like Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party in order to join the Dixiecrat party. During that time they continued to caucus with the Democrats, but they were members of the Dixiecrat party while doing so. When Strom Thurmond’s presidential bid/tantrum against the Democratic party’s support for civil rights ended, he and his fellow Dixiecrats rejoined the Democratic party.
And that is why I had, upthread of the comment you linked to but somehow managed to not understand a word of, stated that Thurmond had switched parties three more times than tax cuts have managed to pay for themselves.
It was a play on words, ‘unchain’ and ‘back in chains’. Within context it was a perfectly appropriate analogy. Such chains aren’t understood to be literal but instead figurative with the same effect-the destruction of opportunity, the degradation of rights, and the prospect of doing work for no personal benefit.
Due to the rise in private prison institutions that gain free labor, these chains are more literal than you realize.
And note, you don’t hear anyone–certainly no Republican–complaining about Republicans talking about the need to unshackle the economy from federal regulation . . .
Or using the phrase “debt slavery.”
As the revisionists have long argued, the real victims of slavery in the first place were the slave owners. Heck, we don’t even need to rely on the neo-confederates really, because the real Confeds were making the same argument as well; White Man’s Burden and all of that.
I’ll just put this here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StScwYJiImQ
The song about Paul Ryan’s humble origins is pretty good, too.
Not to mention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95X1zjVhYfE
Also on point
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/40731_Friday_Night_Jam-_Ry_Cooder_Mutt_Romney_Blues
THIS IS AWESOME.
Biden’s remark sure is keeping in the press how he thinks Republican policies will once again shackle down American workers. Not really a terrible outcome…
Also, how can Republicans saying that regulations are “shackling” corporations but saying that they’re “shackling” people is now suddenly racist?
Last but not least, did you see all the nice things Guliani said about Biden? I thought Republicans didn’t like personal attacks. Saying someone “doesn’t have the mental capacity to govern” is pretty rough (especially considering we had George W. Bush as President).
> Saying someone “doesn’t have the mental
> capacity to govern” is pretty rough
> (especially considering we had George W. Bush
> as President).
Hmm. In a ‘lack of mental capacity to govern’ race, I think W comes in behind (that is, comes off better than) late-term Ronald Regan.
Man, Rudy is still smarting over that “a noun, a verb, and nine-eleven” jab.
You can tell Rudy is smart, because it only took him four years to come up with that biting comeback.
I just had an image of Rudy G. as George Costanza sitting on his “jerk store” comeback and trying to set up a time to use it.
Rudy is their all-time best seller
[...] can start an advice column for African-Americans on the right way to be black. I’m sure America teems with black folks desperate for counsel on how to properly exercise [...]
Re Palin: I thought it was established long ago that when it comes to determining what black people should or should not find offensive, white people should have the bigger say.
You win an internet. I’m packaging the Tubes as we speak, and you should receive them in 3-5 business days (sorry, not stumping for express shipping).
I look forward to the reaction when Alice In Chains release their new studio album.
Maybe we should play “Working on the Chain Gang” on endless loop at every rightwing website.
Would “Unchained Melody” be too subtle?
Unchain my heart
I hereby reject and denounce Gerry Goffin and Carole King for “Chains” and Don Covay and Aretha Franklin for “Chain of Fools.”
Pointer Sisters: “Chainey Do”
Erasure, “Chains of Love.”
Pretenders, “Back on the Chain Gang.”
And don’t get me started on Alice in Chains. Hate speech!
Battleship Chains.
To be fair, Republicans have been lecturing black Americans about why it’s just terribly for them to support Democrats for decades now, so it is no more surprising that Ms. Palin responded to this by chastising the crowd for not being dutiful Republicans than it is that the rest of the Right responded just the same. I’ve already seen the typical “blacks are still slaves, just to the Democrat party” argument popping up in various forums in response to the incident, and I’m sure we’ll continue to see Con talking heads making less honest but more socially acceptable versions of that argument on television over the never few days. Maybe we’ll even get a David Brooks column out of it.
…on television over the
nevernext few days.Bah wth was with that mistake. :/
FTFM