Controlled Chaos Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Black support for Bush drops to two percent Nov 17, 2005 by Larry Elder So much for the Republican "outreach" to black voters, with only 2 percent of blacks "approving" of the president's performance. If only blacks knew of the true history of the Democratic Party. "Black History Month" has been observed for 29 years, yet many blacks know little to nothing about the parties' respective roles in advancing or hindering the civil rights of blacks. How many blacks know that following the Civil War, 23 blacks -- 13 of them ex-slaves -- were elected to Congress, all as Republicans? The first black Democrat was not elected to Congress until 1935, from the state of Illinois. The first black congressional Democrat from a Southern state was not elected until 1973. Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it. How many blacks know that blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states. Fugitive slave laws? In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus. Emancipation? Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it. Civil rights laws? In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it. Right to vote? When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it. Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence. Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states. Civil rights in the '60s? Only 64 percent of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (153 for, 91 against in the House; and 46 for, 21 against in the Senate). But 80 percent of Republicans (136 for, 35 against in the House; and 27 for, 6 against in the Senate) voted for the 1964 Act. What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables. So next "Black History Month," pass some of this stuff along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sec159row2 Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 (edited) i already posted this.. larry elder's column... it was the things i didn't know about the republican party... how much of this history does Jesse Jackson know about??? Edited November 18, 2005 by sec159row2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 oops...my bad....merge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 If it wasn't for Lyndon B Johnson, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed. If it wasn't for Truman, Strom Thurmond would have stayed a Democrat. It's funny to see Larry Elder carry water for the GOP. Used to be a libertarian. I find him to be generally a pretty intelligent conservative pundit, but to say that what the Democrats did in the 1850s is a reason to support the President in 2005 is a pretty big leap of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 2%? I think it's more like 2 people -- J.C. Watts and Alan Keyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 anybody that knows anything about politics would be bright enough to realize that the parties have done a polar opposite switch over the past 150 years. The ideals of the old Democratic party would allign themselves closer to the Republican Party of today (and visa versa) But... nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I never realized that Bush had much black support to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercy! Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 anybody that knows anything about politics would be bright enough to realize that .......................................................But... nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 Judging from your posts...I'd say your parents failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercy! Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 jasonxctf - Just to clarify my “thread failed” image, I thought you were calling the poster above you stupid, hence my response. If I’m in error, and you were referring to Larry Elder, I sure apologize. If I’m not in error, well then ...... never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 It's the whole "man" thing. When blacks thing of the "man" they thing of a waspy republican. I wish there was a magic pill the GOP could discover to change this thinking because it's really ridiculous in this day & age. Wealth & the stereo-type of the "man" dominates both parties. In fact Hillary resembles a waspy "man" ego these days. I think the only thing that might change it is a greater black presence in the GOP. But it's not likely the Democrats are beating them by much in that dept either. But when you are as far behind as the GOP is it's the most logical strategy to adopt. Of course the whole God, country, & the preacher house can help as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 By the way...Mr. Elder doesn't cite the particular poll he's pointing to, but I've seen at least one poll with these results. It was a standard poll of like 1200 Americans. However, that poll didn't sample a statistically significant number of any minority group to really allow for judgement. In the African American community, the poll hit less than 100 respondents. Given a sample size that small, just by random variation, you'd expect that the poll would be unable to tell the difference between roughly a 1% approval rating and a 20% approval rating at the 95% confidence level. This means that if I took a random sample of 100 people and polled them 100 times, 95 of those times I would have wound up seeing the entire range of numbers from 1 to 20% approval...and the real value would be somwhere inbetween. If he's citing a better poll, I'd love to know about it, but having seen similar results, I believe its an artifact of trying to look at an extremely small subset of a larger, more statistically significant poll. There's a reason why most polls use at least 1000 people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Bartman's my idol Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 I'd say that if only 2% of African-Americans support Bush, then the African-American voter is the most intelligent group of American voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 02:26 PM) anybody that knows anything about politics would be bright enough to realize that the parties have done a polar opposite switch over the past 150 years. The ideals of the old Democratic party would allign themselves closer to the Republican Party of today (and visa versa) But... nice try. And I'm guessing at some point they will switch again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 02:47 PM) And I'm guessing at some point they will switch again. We've already seen the birth of "Big government conservatives"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercy! Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 We've already seen the birth of "Big government conservatives"... Ain't it the truth. But I do believe that a change is gonna come........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 IMNSHO, neither party really care about issues for issue sake, they only wish to score debate points and get elected. So if being pro-ABC and anti-123 achieves that goal, then that's their platform. Statesmen are a dying breed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 05:52 PM) Statesmen are a dying breed. Are you announcing your candidacy?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 04:56 PM) Are you announcing your candidacy?? LOL! That would take them from a dying breed to a completely DEAD breed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 04:57 PM) LOL! That would take them from a dying breed to a completely DEAD breed. Then you would be very pissed, I'd have to run on a GOP ticket based on litmus test issues like abortion, national debt, gun laws, school vouchers . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 04:52 PM) IMNSHO, neither party really care about issues for issue sake, they only wish to score debate points and get elected. So if being pro-ABC and anti-123 achieves that goal, then that's their platform. Statesmen are a dying breed. I don't remember who said this -- when I googled it, it was attirbuted to Bob Edwards, but I suspect that's not right, but, "Statesmen are dead politicians. Lord knows, we need more statesmen." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.