God, Clinton, won't you ever just go away?

Actually, yes, I find Fulbright more contemptible than most other men who shared his views. That’s largely because he held on to his bigotry LONG after political expediency demanded it, LONG after even the likes of George Wallace had come around to the realization that the age of segregation had to end.

So, I repeat: why did Bill Clinton give such a man the Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a U.S. citizen can receive? And why didn’t that outrage anyone who CLAIMS to have been offended by Trent Lott? Hmm… you don’t suppose it’s because Fulbright was a Democrat, and a very liberal one at that?

Any suggestion that the Republicans won the South by anything but thoroughly and utterly racist means is bullshit.
Total bullshit.
Complete, utter, absolute.
My last trip to the South, just a couple of weeks ago, I found myself behind a pickup with a display of the Georgia Stars and Bars, calling the incumbent Gov a turncoat, obviously by implication meaning that the Republican candidate wasn’t a turncoat and that he was the one a true Southerner - white Southerner, obviously - would vote for.
This pattern is hardly the exception. To quote from a little history (full article at
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172905.shtml)

“In 1980, Ronald Reagan opened his campaign for the presidency in Philadelphia, Miss., with a speech on states’ rights. Philadelphia was known for only one event – it was where three civil rights workers (Goodman, Schwerner and Cheney) had been murdered in 1964.
Republicans insist the choice of that particular location was not intended to send a message, yet no alternative explanation has ever been suggested – after all, Philadelphia, Miss., is not a natural place to start a presidential campaign.”

This incident alone erased and will erase until the day I die any thought of ever pulling a lever for a Republican candidate. If Reagan roasts in Hell forever, it’ll be too short a sentence for what he did that day by figuratively dancing on the graves of those slain civil rights’ workers.
The article then reviews Republican strategy in the South. Fast forwarding from Grant to 1964:

“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…
It was the desire to win the Wallace vote that shaped a large part of Nixon’s policies and even more his rhetoric in the next four years. After Wallace was shot in a Maryland parking lot, while the Democrats nominated George McGovern, Nixon’s task was done for him. He carried the South with an astounding 71.3 percent of the vote, getting more than 10 million votes there – more than twice as many as 1968. And he did more than 10 percent better in the South than in the rest of the country.”

Everyone knows the above is the truth, but nobody says it out loud, in the interests of civility.
My hope is that Bush, who the above article makes clear, has abandoned this Southern strategy, despite the Jones incident, will make it possible for those younger than myself to truly have a choice about which party to vote for. But speaking for myself, there is no way I could reconcile a vote for a Republican with my conscience.

Only a brilliant person such as yourself could deduce all that from a flag and a bumpersticker.

No, the surplus I mentioned was the one that GWB said belonged to the people and not to the government.

This bumper sticker is evidence ony that the Democrat may have LOST GA due to racisim. However, this is not something the Republicans did anything to capitalize on.

Also, I would hope that the Dems gained as many or more votes as they lost due to their principled stand. From comments I heard on TV, they DID.

If someone with your views and attitudes toward the world dislikes me too, I can feel pretty good about my life.

december sez"This bumper sticker is evidence ony that the Democrat may have LOST GA due to racisim. However, this is not something the Republicans did anything to capitalize on"
Do you have any idea of what Sonny Perdue’s platform was other than the GA state flag? No, I didn’t think so. Get a clue, pal.

Scylla, where do you get the idea that pointing out someone else’s bigotry s bigotry itself? Go along with december on the Great Clue Hunt, willya? And take jackmanii along too.

The weight of the evidence goes entirely one way, pals. Denying it, however vociferously, and calling those who point it out names, simply adds to the weight of the evidence. Your party is going to be seen as a haven for racists as long as you refuse to face reality directly.

Here’s Today’s Helpful Hint: If you don’t like what you see in the mirror, it isn’t the mirror’s fault.

Actually I’ve yet to see any proof that Reagan lied under oath.

“I don’t remember” has a fair degree of credibility, especially when you consider his present circumstances.

I don’t. Just calling a whole group bigoted, and refusing to back it up makes you a fucking scumbag bigot.

Generalizing about a larger group based on individuals is the definition of bigotry.

Knowing better, as you do, makes you a lying prick.

Doing all this just to pretend at superiority, put down an opposing group, and lift your own group up makes you an opportunistic weasel.

You are lower than whale shit.

True, but at the time Reagan did demonstrate a unique brand of “I don’t remember”:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_27.htm

That’s not quite right. Here’s a couple definitions that should clarify your error:

bigot:

  1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]
  2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

bigotry:

  1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one’s own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.
  2. The practice or tenets of a bigot.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigotry

What you’re objecting to is more similar to the concept of stereotyping, it only becomes bigotry if it is unreasoned, or narrow minded.
You obviously have a well developed theory of how institutions are innocent of any taint from the wrongdoing of their members, but not everyone holds to that belief as strongly as do many conservatives. The failure to hold the same tenets as the republican party, coupled with the belief that the GOP actually does stand for something, does not automatically make someone a bigot. You also need to show a lack of reasoning, or narrow-minded intolerance.
Repeatedly asserting that those you disagree with are bigots, especially when coupled with your penchant for confusing criticism of individual pubbies with criticism the party as a whole, is doing nothing for your credibility.

Those damned partisans:

Partisan

Partisan

Your favorite TV station gets in the act

Partisan, partisan, partisan

For public service.

Probably because Clinton didn’t step up to the podium at the award ceremony and say how swell everything would be if The Southern Manifesto had prevailed and the Civil Rights Act had been defeated.

He presented the award based on the good that Fulbright did, and left Fulbright’s racism in the past where most people were comfortable keeping it.

Lott didn’t do that. He stepped up to the podium and said how swell everything would be if a dixiecrat had been elected president.

Temper, temper. I did back it up; you just didn’t like what the mirror showed you. I pointed out the sheer number of racists that the party of which you are a proud member has elected as their leaders. If you have a better way to show what they truly stand for as a group, despite the presence of a number of individuals who may disagree but go along anyway, let’s have it. You have had many opportunities to present the evidence that the GOP is not a haven for racists, but you have chosen invective instead. Got anything? Anything at all?

Time for you to grow the hell up, even just a little, and accept more responsibility for your actions. Soft bigotry is still bigotry, and all the evidence so far shows that you and your party and its leaders and its policies support it.

No elvis, you’ve pulled a couple of questionable Republicans out of your ass and pretended that that represents the whole party.

Some of them aren’t Republicans and some of them aren’t even questionable any more.
You’re a lying sack of shit.

RobertTB:

From that .partisan site above:

The Republicans know why the South now votes for them, and they’re not shy about using it every chance they get.
Every single time something like this happens, someone says, as they said in this selfsame article, “Perdue is a decent man who does not have a reputation for racial divisiveness.”
Which is another piece of total bullshit. No decent man would have run on such a platform.

Squink:

I stand corrected. The behavior I was describing is stereotyping, as you say. Elvis is a scumbag bigot because he insists his egregious stereotypes are true.

Earlier I offered the chance for anyone who beleives Republicans are generally bigoted to prove it.

How many of the current 51 Republican Senators are bigots?

Nobody has bothered to respond.

Scum like Elvis are not interested in proving their accusations.

It’s especially stupid considering that the Republican party has just beat the shit out of Lott for bigoted comments.

The democrats wish to protect their voting block and they are willing to lie and portray Republicans as bigots to do so.

Total fucking idiots like Elvis and others actually beleive it.

Once again, it seems to me that this is as much a wrongheaded generalization as the initial suggestion that all pubbies are racist.

That’s true. I retract it with apologies.

It is my beleif that there are some, like bill Clinton who are doing it, but it by no means applies to all Democrats and it was incorrect for me to generalize that way.

elvis, I appreciate your invitation to go out and look for clues, but it isn’t my obligation to help the clueless - i.e. you.

No doubt you’ll want to consider in your future diatribes that David Duke ran for office as a Democrat as well as a Republican (he picked up a third of the vote as a Democrat in a 1975 race for the Louisiana state senate). And Klan leader and notorious white supremacist Tom Metzger actually won the Democratic primary in 1980 in California’s 43d Congressional District (fortunately getting whomped in the general election).

So both parties have at times had to put down questionable and at times overtly racist standard-bearers.

If you’d rather address mainstream policies that matter, the floor is open.