Democratic bigotry in denouncing the "Southern Strategy"

[Scylla]

elucidator:

On preview: the cites. Check 'em later, but, before I do, is one of them “Rush”? Is that who I think it is? The Orca of the Airwaves? You sure you don’t want to edit this list?}

::My most syrupy and evil and ingratiating tone of voice::

Oh no, elucidator. That cite, even though it is from Rush Limbaugh is absolutely fair and even. I know you are man of truth and stature, and I have long admired your impartiality. Therefore, I know that you will disregard the source while judging it’s merts. It contains incontrovertible proof of the most vile form of voter fraud.

and…

::Chuckle chuckle snort snort::

I would cite relevant portions for you, but I want you to get the whole thing unadultered. And you shall.

Of course, ::Chuckle Snort Chuckle Chuckle:: You will have to register as a member (for free) ar Rush’s website to do so!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Scylla]

Elucidator:

The same is true in reverse, of course, the main difference being that there’s one hell of a lot more white people.

Actually, that’s not true (about it being the same in reverse.)

“Getting out the vote” is for the most part an urban phenomenom in low-income areas. Democrats have a pretty strong lock on most minorities and tend to expend the effort there, while the Pubbies do not.

So, I guess this would be the current Democratic “Black strategy” of trading money for votes.

Actually I don’t believe that. As fun as it would be to make that argument for a Democratic race based agenda, I don’t think that’s the issue.

The bottom line is that it’s legal to pay people to encourage voting and even bring them to the voting booths as long as you don’t encourage one candidate or campaign.

The Democratic party knows they have strength with the minority vote so they focus dollars there.

These workers know they’re working for the Democrats and being paid for results, and sometimes they get overzealous, and suggestive to the people they are encouraging to vote.

To my knowledge there is no agenda to get break the law by the Democratic party in general. Such would be stupid. They already have the vote in their pocket. So, in fact they strongly discourage practice of having the people they are paying to get out the vote do any campaigning or even mention party affiliation. They have little to gain and much to lose by even the appearance of impropriety.

Nevertheless some people get overzealous and do it anyway. There are a lot of people out there GOTV. It happens.

This is why most of the voter fraud and accusations of it implicate the Democrats, and it’s also why the Republicans are very watchful for fraudulent practices.

If the roles were reversed I’m fairly certain that it would be the Republicans having problems with voter fraud and the Democrats watching for it.

Each side of course, accuses the other wherever possible.

Whenever any overzealous worker gives cigarettes and tells his people to vote Democrat the Pubbies cry conspiracy, and institutionalized voter fraud.

Every time a Republican poll watcher screws up, and thinks he’s found fraud and ends up harassing an innocent minority figure the Democrats cry conspiracy to stifle the minority vote.

But, I think the fact is, that both sides are actually doing what they should be doing for the most part, and trying in good faith to do it honestly and fairly. Both have little to gain and too much to lose by cheating in this particular respect.

[elucidator]

You cad, sir! You bounder!

Do you realize how close I came to having my spectral being corrupted! The Goddess was with me. I linked to a tiresome, but not actually toxic, forgotten rock band. Lucky me!

I have no particular objection to eating pork. But reading it? Well, one has to draw the line somewhere.

[pantom]

Scylla: So I take it your view on the flag is that all us darkies would be nice & contented if all them bad Nawthen Outside Agitatuhs’d jes’ stay the Hell out.
Man, you’re sinking lower by the second.

Merry Christmas!

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by pantom *
**Scylla: So I take it your view on the flag is that all us darkies would be nice & contented if all them bad Nawthen Outside Agitatuhs’d jes’ stay the Hell out.
Man, you’re sinking lower by the second.

Merry Christmas! **

That’s not what I said, and you know it.

[pantom]

I support the Republican stance of keeping your yap shut on this.

I personally beleive the flag should be quietly and without fanfare taken down. I think the Republicans wisely decided not to try and make an issue out of it. Bill Bradley on the other hand seemed pretty intent on making as big an issue out of it as possible. What does this accomplish but dissent, and hard feelings and renewed racial tension on both sides?

Like I said, the Democrats seem pretty intent on creating and perpetuating racial issues. It brings in the votes.

So, what did the vocal Democrats accomplish by making this an issue? Let’s see, they pissed off a bunch of rednecks, made a bunch of black people feel bad, had some fun accusing some Republicans of racist pandering for not picking at scabs and lobbing grenades into an area of high racial tensions, and, when it was all said and done, they pissed everybody off by removing the flag and putting it into an even more prominent position!

Oh yeah, there’s a victory for peace and goodwill and bridging racial gaps.

What a bunch of fucking morons.

With curse words & everything.
That’s the long version. Mine’s the short one.
You think I haven’t been hearing this nonsense from white people my whole life? Do you really think you’re being original?
The best that can be said about this idiotic idea of hiding under the Constitution is that it’s spineless.

[minty_green]

One should never be caught without a backbone when dealing with bigots.

[Scylla]

The best that can be said about this idiotic idea of hiding under the Constitution is that it’s spineless.

I see, so as soon as the Constitution is not expediant for your purposes, you chuck it.

You think I haven’t been hearing this nonsense from white people my whole life? Do you really think you’re being original?

Not original, just correct. And I don’t see what the color of the person saying something has to do with anything. But, you seem determined to create an issue, and god forbid I stand in the way of a good racial diatribe. They’re always so helpful.

[Tejota]

So at long last Scylla admits that bigotry is rife withing the republican party, and that the southern strategey did exist, and may still, but! He tells us: Bigotry is constitutionally protected.

Well, duh. :rolleyes:

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Tejota *
**So at long last Scylla admits that bigotry is rife withing the republican party, and that the southern strategey did exist, and may still, but! He tells us: Bigotry is constitutionally protected.

Well, duh. :rolleyes: **

In the village of the Straw men, Tejota has been named King.

[minty_green]

[Highlander]

There can be only one.

[/Highlander]

[elucidator]

About those cites? Did you actually manage to keep a straight face when you typed the word “cites”? Rush Limbaugh is a cite? No,sir, Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon. WorldNetDaily is a cite? No, it is one of a number of house organs of the blithering right. Aren’t you the guy who howls with derision when MediaWhores is mentioned? And yet you expect this crapola to be accepted?

Enterstageright I had not heard of, yet, somehow, I suspect that anyone involved with shilling for G. Gordon Liddy’s newest…well, book, I suppose…might be a bit low on ol’ elucidator’s list of impartial sources.

The ACLU stories may have something to them, but I’ve heard nothing more lately, no doubt the insidious minions of the liberal media are to blame. Either that, or they simply didn’t go anywhere.

Really, Scylla, surely you didn’t expect this rot to go unchallenged?

But, anon, please clarify: is Tejota’s characterization accurate? Do you, in fact, actually claim that the “Southern strategy” never even existed? That it is all a fabrication by the corrupt and vile agents of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? He’s kidding, right? Right? Surely even your capacity for admanant denial would falter under such a weight.

[Scylla]

'Luce:

Do you, in fact, actually claim that the “Southern strategy” never even existed? That it is all a fabrication by the corrupt and vile agents of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? He’s kidding, right? Right? Surely even your capacity for admanant denial would falter under such a weight.

It existed. I think it was somewhat cynical and bigoted. The degree can be debated. About that time the Democrats were sending forth their very best as a Presidential candidate on a fine and upstanding platform of hate and bigotry. You remember George Wallace I trust.

As I’ve said before, and you seem to have missed, neither party has much to be proud of on this issue of race in the late 60s, and early 70s.

What this has to do with OP is beyond me.

It seems pretty safe to say that the Democrats had a stronger record of bigotry and race hate in the late 60s early 70s than the Democrats. Recall also that it was the Democrats who blocked the civil rights act.

So, talking about the era of the Southern strategy is silly thing to do for one wishing to suggest that the Dems have a better record on civil rights than the Republicans.

---

I’ve been pretty squarely trying to avoid talking about the far past as it has little to do with the actual debate, which is focussing on the current status of the parties.

[Scylla]

'Luce:

You’ve made me wade through enough Krugman and enough left-wing cites, that I feel no pity or guilt in my choices.

Choose what cites you like on your own and you’ll find the bulk of the accusations of voter fraud directed at the Demcorats and the bulk of the accusations of suppression aimed at the Republicans for reasons I’ve already discussed.

[elucidator]

Well, perhaps not pity or guilt but howzabout a twinge of embarrassment. Mr. Krugman is on a par with Rush Limbaugh? Oh, come now, you can’t say that with a straight face.

George Wallace was, of course, not the Democratic nominee for President. He put himself forth for consideration as such, but you don’t seriously suggest there was the slightest chance of his actually suceeding? Your suggestion that the Dems were putting him forward is laughable.

You yourself describe the Southern strategy as cynical and racist. How then is it possible that decrying and denouncing such is “bigoted”? You may, if that is your determination, believe that the Dems were engaged in nothing more principled than reverse race-baiting. As the engagement on this thread has made clear, that can most charitably be desciribed as a minority opinion.

Clearly, as the recent Defenestration of Trent demonstrates, the Southern strategy has been rendered inoperative, the Pubbies have stopped beating thier spouses, this is all to the good. But your suggestion that this instantly renders them blameless for past transgressions seems a bit overly generous. Doesn’t one at least have to confess in order to claim absolution? Seems a bit much to say “They’re not doing it anymore, therefore they never did.”

[Scylla]

George Wallace was, of course, not the Democratic nominee for President. He put himself forth for consideration as such, but you don’t seriously suggest there was the slightest chance of his actually suceeding? Your suggestion that the Dems were putting him forward is laughable.

That’s true he could not have succeded. He got shot.

Sorry 'Luce you got what was called the “most dangerous racist in America,” a man who barred the door at a white college to physically block a black student, the countries leading proponent of segregation, who may have been connected to several bombings, and this man is the Democratic Governor of Alabama and respected enough in his party that he’s able to get his hat thrown into the ring for serious consideration by the Democratic party as nominee for President.

The Southern strategy was cynical and took advantage of racism. It happened around 1964 One of the leading members of the Democratic party was hawking racist hate 8 years later in 1972. The simple fact that he was in the running for the nomination, that his name was in the hat, is all the proof necessary that not only was racism tolerated in the Democratic party of 1972. It was the route to leadership.

How then is it possible that decrying and denouncing such is “bigoted”?

Becuase you’re not discussing it in a historic perspective you and others are saying it applies to the Republican party today (which is what this thread is supposed to be about.) It is about as applicable to the actual debate as hand, as George Wallace.

Doesn’t one at least have to confess in order to claim absolution?

Who today should be confessing for the Southern Strategy of 1964?

Who on the Democratic side should be confessing today for the Democratic party of 1972? Or the party of 1968 that blocked the civil raights act?

It seems to me that actively pursuing an agenda of racism as the Democrats did is about a thousand times worse than simply tailoring your campaign to the environment as the Pubbies did.

But nobody’s fucking interested in apologies. Do you truly think the Democrats are bringing this up because they feel that an apology is necesary and then everything will be all right?

Of course not. They wish to portray Republicans as racists and bigots because it is expediant to do so.

What the Dems are doing now is far worse than the Southern Strategy was. They’re actively creating racial tension and dissent to feed off of it.

You can hide your head in the sand about it, but it’s going on.

[elucidator]

Stuff and nonsense. Was GeeDubya’s visit to Bob Jones U. merely accidental? Did he happen to be wandering by, and popped in for a brief speech? Of course not, the action was measured as all his actions were. Not by him, of course, he is not to be trusted with such weighty matters, but by Mr. Rove. The message was unmistakeable: we credit these people with the dignity we would afford any other institution of “higher learning”. Did he take the occassion to express his unequivocal rejection of racism in any form. He did not, and you know he did not. Hence, the Southern strategy was quite alive and well as of the 2000 election.

Only you, it appears, are equipped to see this dastardly plot you fulminate against. The Dems have every right to be proud of thier leadership in the civil rights struggle. If they are not, to a man, simon pure of the taint of racism, what of it? Certainly the Pubbies, who have so recently demonstrated thier racism and cynicism, as you yourself describe it, have little enough to be proud of.

The Pubbies are abandoning these vile habits, that is all to the good, and are to be commended, albeit faintly. And if they continue in their committment to the right path, so much the better. If they do, and the Dems shall continue to associate them with racism, then you will have a case. As of this moment, you have not.

[Scylla]

Stuff and nonsense. Was GeeDubya’s visit to Bob Jones U. merely accidental? Did he happen to be wandering by, and popped in for a brief speech? Of course not, the action was measured as all his actions were.

You need to read the thread. I already did this with somebody else.

The message was unmistakeable:

It was a couple of pages ago.

Sure. We can play this game. Again. Even though I had the exact same discussion with somebody else a page or so ago. You guys are broken records.
I’m all for guilt by association. Clearly Dubya is a racist and a homophobe for speaking at BJU. By the exact same logic Hillary and Bill Clinton, Al Gore and some other prominent Democrat whose name I forget are racists and anti-semites.

Only you, it appears, are equipped to see this dastardly plot you fulminate against. The Dems have every right to be proud of thier leadership in the civil rights struggle. If they are not, to a man, simon pure of the taint of racism, what of it? Certainly the Pubbies…

Blah blah blah.

You’re disapointing me by recycling this old bullshit.

Guilt by association is a stupid argument. You may think it’s the height of righteousness to walk around denouncing people. I don’t share your opinion.

Anyway. It’s four pages so far.

If I read what you’re saying correctly you do not believe the Republican leadership is bigoted or pursuing an agenda of bigotry at present.

Fine. That’s the first question.

Why then are the Democrats making such a big play to call Republicans bigoted and racist?

[elucidator]

Force of habit?

The Pubbies new garb as the champion of the downtrodden is a bit recent, we’ve not quite gotten used to it.

And your declaration that you have already disposed of the entire matter of BJU is your own assertion, I don’t see anybody saying something like “By Golly, he’s right! Well, never mind then.”

And what are we to make of the opinion of black people themselves, who clearly still percieve the Dems as being more in tune with thier wants and needs. Are they but the pathetic dupes of a cunning, race-mongering Democratic party? Are they somehow ill-equipped to make decisions as to thier own advantage?

[Scylla]

You’re not debating, you’re just jabbering.