Democratic bigotry in denouncing the "Southern Strategy"

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Scylla *

1. Are the Republicans generally bigoted as can be demonstrated by an analysis of the current Senators and their campaigns as I’ve described above.

2. Is the Demcoratic party crying "bigot!’ at Repbulicans simply as a strategy to protect it’s voting block.

3. If two is “yes.” Isn’t that a bigoted and racist strategy?

“Have you stopped beating your wife? The only acceptable answers are yes and no. Any other response is outside the boundaries of this debate.”

:rolleyes:

Anyway, per your loaded questions and without any of the additional discussion that you find so distressing:

1. No
2. No
3. N/A

Happy debating, Scylla.

[Scylla]

Sparticus:

A close examination of the link supports what I said earlier. The voting record is not a measurement of racism or bigotry but rather how closely a politician agrees with the Naacp’s stance.

In looking over the actual issues it seems to me that only 7 of them can reasonably be construed as having anything to do with racism and civil rights, and some of these are quite a stretch.

The most obvious racial one, like #27 (equal voting rights,) passed unoposed.

The seven issues which have possible relevancy are:

#s 3,5,7,17,19,20,23,27, and 32.

This cite is not useful for documenting racism, or a racist agenda. It is useful for seeing how closely our elected representatives agree witht the stance of the NAACP on various issues. That’s all.

[Spoke]

The Council of Conservative Citizens endorsed Republican Saxby Chambliss for the US Senate (in his recent victory over Max Cleland), by the way.

Here is a sample quote from Saxby Chambliss while he was still in the House (which may give you some idea of why he gets the CCC endorsement):

In Georgia, U.S. Representative Saxby Chambliss, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security suggested that the Sheriff of Lowndes County be “turn[ed] loose” to “arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line.”

Cite.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

The OP seems woefully ignorant of history, especially for one yelling, “Put up or shut up!” I say “Read up before you pipe up.” The fact that a southern strategy existed for the Republican party and was employed through recent years was, I thought, commonly known. A history provided by NewsMax, certainly no member of the “liberal media,” provides a primer for those who are unaware.

Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe

In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model – that of direct support for Southern opposition to desegregation. This strategy cost them the outer South, but gained them the Deep South. It also severed the party from blacks, and that proved to be permanent.
On the other hand, by getting 48.7 percent of Southern votes, Goldwater became the first Republican in history to do better in the South than the North. And the South’s share of the national vote rose to 17.4 percent.
Nixon played a careful version of the Southern strategy in 1968, combining Ike’s class strategy with Goldwater’s racial appeal. In 1968, riots in northern cities had nationalized the race issue – so it was possible to gain Northern as well as Southern votes by a mild racial appeal.

Another essay, purportedly written by a representative of the Log Cabin Republicans, is also illuminating.

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/CCC/southernstrategy.htm

In 1972, the core of President Nixon’s reelection campaign was not break-ins and wire-tapping but rather the “Southern strategy,” or as the Nixon team called it, “positive polarization.” It was about winning over the South by pitting a singled-out minority, such as African Americans, against a fearful majority, such as angry Southern whites. The key was to play directly into the hands of bigotry and intolerance, veering away from the heritage of the party of Lincoln.

Thus, the first question should be: 1) To what extent are the Republicans still employing a “southern strategy” of bigoted racial appeal, versus moving away from one? 2) If they are moving away from one, why do they feel such a strategy might now be effective?

As to why such accusations may appear to be greater now, I don’t think they are. To the extent that people haven’t talked about them, I would say that the explanation is that it wasn’t noteworthy. That is to say, “Bigoted republicans? What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?”

[Spoke]

Who remembers Willie Horton?

It’s not just Southern Republicans.

[Scylla]

Hentor:

What members of both parties did 30-40 years ago is another discussion.

My questions refer to the present tense.

[Sofa_King]

Obviously, it would be outside the scope of this debate to actually consult the people who consider themselves to be the victims of racism.

However, if you were you try to find out what some of those people think about Republicans, you would find that in 2000, Al Gore received 90 percent of the 10.5 million votes cast by African-Americans.

But that doesn’t mean anything at all, now does it?

[Azael]

I can’t get into a long diatribe right now (I nearly had my finger bitten off by a rather large cat as I tried to give it some medication) but there are some things I would like to say.

1.) If there has ever been a history of Republicans appealing to a bigoted agenda then Republicans today should be working very hard to remove this stain.

2.) Some Democratic candidates have been no less guilty and the same applies to them.

3.) This issue should not be used to paint either party as a whole (as I am sure the desperate Democrats would love to do right now) because it is obvious that a substantial base of both parties do not support such policies. Acting like they do is unrealistic and sheer political opportunism.

[Scylla]

Sofa:

Why don’t you tell us what that means?

[Sofa_King]

All I’m gonna say is they seem to see something you don’t.

Who do you think is the more qualified observer, Scylla?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**“Have you stopped beating your wife? The only acceptable answers are yes and no. Any other response is outside the boundaries of this debate.”

:rolleyes:

Anyway, per your loaded questions and without any of the additional discussion that you find so distressing:

1. No
2. No
3. N/A

Happy debating, Scylla. **

This is not a trick question, minty. The assertion has been made that the Republicans in Congress are rife with racism. The first question limits the scope of the discussion to the Senate, a representative sample. Why is this unreasonable?

Unless you’d like to continue to deflect the question by focusing on irrelevancies like the one above.

Hell, use the House, if you’d like. I’d just like to see the question answered with evidence supporting the assertion put into words so ably by samclem, which I’ll repeat here:

"Your" party’s reaction to Lott’s comments was merely "Let’s shut him up before he blows the lid off of the underlying racism that exists in our party before it get out of hand."

If what he says is true, it should be well documented, since it’s been going on for 50 years, more or less. So, I would expect some supporting evidence forthwith, including specific instances with all 51 Republican Senators (since the allegation applies to all of them), or I would expect all of you Democrats who have alleged that it is true to come in here and apologize.

It’s that simple. I can understand specific cases, like Lott, but saying that one case proves them all true is a load of crap and you know it. Make a blanket statement, prove it.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Sofa King *
**All I’m gonna say is they seem to see something you don’t. **

This is the kind of bullshit I’m talking about. If you wish to make an assertion based on your cite, please do so.

The fact that you’re choosing not to shows that you know that the assertion is bullshit, but you want to throw it out there anyway for innuendo value.

I’ve already discussed the fact that the Democrats have held a majority of the black vote in my Op, and how this supports my contentions.

Not only are you playing games of cowardly innuendo, you’re also not bringing anything new to the table.

Perceived Republican inroads into this voting block is exactly the reason that I’m suggesting that Democrat party members are throwing around accusations of racism.

Are you so eager to take a cowardly cheap shot, that you don’t even recognize you’re strengthening my argument?

Finally, as I’ve said three or four times, this is not the place to play innuendo. This is the place to prove your charges.

[Scylla]

Airman:

I don’t need all 51. Just enough to make a strong case that it’s prevalent throughout the Republican side of the Senate and not on the Democratic side.

I am also open to any other form of methodical support for the assertion that Republicans are currently generally bigoted or employing a bigoted strategy.

I want raw evidence.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF *
This is not a trick question, minty. The assertion has been made that the Republicans in Congress are rife with racism. The first question limits the scope of the discussion to the Senate, a representative sample. Why is this unreasonable?

It is unreasonable not because of the sample, but because of how the question is phrased: “Are the Republicans generally bigoted . . .” (emphasis mine). Damn few people have claimed that Republicans are generally bigoted, despite Scylla’s best efforts to turn every criticism of the Republican Party into an “All Republicans are _________” strawman.

What people have been claiming is that some Republican politicians are bigots, that too many Republican campaigns have been tailored to capture the votes of bigots, and that the leaders of the Republican party intentionally adopted a strategy to gain a national majority by appealing to bigoted white voters in the South.

But of course, those claims are all outside the boundaries of this discussion, as dictated by the OP. Too bad, might have been informative.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Sofa King *
**All I’m gonna say is they seem to see something you don’t.

Who do you think is the more qualified observer, Scylla? **

I believe this is an example of the logical fallacy, “affirmation of the consequent.” If the Republicans were obviously bigoted, you could expect that most African-Americans would vote against them. Since most of them have, in fact, voted Democrat, then of course the Republicans are racist.

Nope, this fact, by itself, it doesn’t hold water.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

In that case, minty, who are they? Names and proof are all that is required.

[Spoke]

Republican Bob Barr addresses racist group.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**What people have been claiming is that some Republican politicians are bigots…

**But that point’s conceded.

**…that too many Republican campaigns have been tailored to capture the votes of bigots…

**Which current ones?

**…and that the leaders of the Republican party intentionally adopted a strategy to gain a national majority by appealing to bigoted white voters in the South.

**Is that a current strategy? Can that be demonstrated?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by spoke- *
**Republican Bob Barr addresses racist group. **

Your cite is 4 years old. Didn’t Barr already lose his office?

[Scylla]

Minty:

What people have been claiming is that some Republican politicians are bigots, that too many Republican campaigns have been tailored to capture the votes of bigots, and that the leaders of the Republican party intentionally adopted a strategy to gain a national majority by appealing to bigoted white voters in the South.

Ok. That seems worthy of discussion here, because such action should be a tacit acceptance of bigotry, wouldn’t it? Accepting it and appealing to it in such a fashion would convince me that my party was generally bigoted.

I would suggest that we see if this assertion carries any weight.

Let’s look at the campaigns of the South in the recent midterm elections.

Can you demonstrate that in a preponderance of those campaigns, there was an appeal to bigotry on the part of the Republicans, that was not shared by the Democrats?

I am open to any form of logical and methodical substantiation of this charge dealing with recent elections.

Without such substantiation I simply consider it slanderous.

So, if you beleive your statement is accurate, could you please demonstrate it’s accuracy?

But of course, those claims are all outside the boundaries of this discussion, as dictated by the OP. Too bad, might have been informative.

If you don’t wish to prove the allegation as I’ve suggested, I am more than open to alternate forms of substantiation as long as they are equally rigorous and methodical.