Have a very narcissistic Christmas everyone!!

You're not making any sense. Have you been imbibing a bit too much Christmas "cheer"?

 

Super logic. I will bet you win almost half of your arguments with yourself.

Ah! Even better logic.

 

I don't know if the remarks were uncalled for but I trust Steve's judgement. I was simply pointing out that the racist southern element of the current GOP has a history of lynching black men. Granted they called themselves dixiecrats at the time, they are the same people that are now thoroughly entrenched in the southern wing of the GOP. The switched parties when the Democrats pushed for civil rights for blacks. They are the same people today that they were yesterday no matter what they choose to call themselves these days.

 

I don't believe it. You finally admitted that Democrats are racists. Go for it!

 

I'd call myself a Republicrat, but I'd have to really hate myself then.

 

And for good reason!! Leave the "crat" off the end and add "can". You'll like yourself better if you do.

 

My conscience prevents me.

 

You purposefully misunderstand your own history in order to make yourself feel Ok about your own traditions. Whatever it takes I guess. Democrats were not racists, southerners who hated Republicans because Lincoln was a Republicans sided with Democrats with all their racism intact but couldn't stay with Democrats because the Dems didn't support their racism and they found a new home. The Republican Party. Like it or not, deny it or not, they are as much a part of the GOP as any member of the Right and accepted and tolerated as such. You say that I admitted that they were once a part of the Democratic Party but you just can't seem to admit that they NOW are part of your party. Why can you only see so far and then you become blind?

 

You mean like Senator Byrd found a new home? Senator J. William Fulbright found a new home? (BTW, guess who his political "son" was.) Governor George Wallace found a new home? Who investigated MLK? Which party opposed the civil rights actS (all of them?)?

 

This is either a little too clever for some of the opposition to get their head around or they're just being their deliberately obtuse selves.

 

I think historically racism on one level or another was taken for granted and practiced and accepted by just about everyone. But I think you're totally right in pointing out that when the Democratic party started attacking institutional racism back in the 1950s and 1960s The Solid South eventually defected to a party that they found more congenial and sympathetic to their views which was the Republican Party. And they've been an important and valued component of that party ever since.

 

So you are saying that Maddox, Wallace, Byrd, the Kennedys, et al were attacking institutional racism by promoting segregation, blocking admittance to the universities, belonging to the KKK, investigating MLK, voting against the civil right acts multiple times, etc. If that is "attacking institutional racism", one of us is missing something,

 

I think it's clear from even a cursory reading of history that as the Democratic Party became less and less inclined to support or ignore the Dixiecrats, the Dixiecrats simply migrated to a party in which they felt more comfortable and which was more comfortable with them. You can thank Lyndon Johnson for playing a large role in sending the racists your way, you can congratulate yourselves for accepting them and guaranteeing yourselves a reliable source of votes.

 

You mean while he was leading the Republicans who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1960, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, 1968 Civil Rights Acts, Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, etc. Oh, and while the Democrats were voting against Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1960, and Filibustering many others.

Listen! If there is any truth to your hypothesis, you definitely have the wrong era. So instead of cursorily reading history, maybe you ought to see what really happened.

 

Read up on Orval Faubus if you would like to learn more about racist democrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus

 

Or George Wallace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace

 

I seriously doubt that few if any of those Republicans of the 50's and 60's would stand a chance in the Republican party of today. They're all Socialists by your standards. Nixon would be viewed as a rabid statist and environmental nut job.

Be that as it may. the fact remains that Dixiecrats migrated to the Republican Party for a reason or reasons certainly not entirely race-based but equally as certainly because they felt that their racial views would be better tolerated there. And I think they made the right choice. Which Democrats voted against the civil rights acts? The majority of them were, i'll bet, the ones who eventually left the party and whom the Republicans subsequently embraced. Your whole argument seems to hinge on the assertion that parties do not change. That their views are static. That the Democrats of 1955 are essentially the same Democrats we have now. And that Republicans of the likes of Lincoln and TR are the Republicans who dominate the party now. I don't think that this is the case.

 

Or Robert Byrd:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd

 

See above.

 

An intersting article on racist democrats:

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html