BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 09:12 AM

Sawzaw,

Your post of earlier today is emblematic of the state of the reactionary movement that you are ineffectively seeking to represent in being...

scattered, inarticulate and incomprehensible.

Tell ya what... We'll give you a Mulligan... you're welcome to try again.

Reagrds,

Danny (who's away to The Carolinas)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 12:34 AM

First of all, Democrats made the bill available at 11 p.m. on Thursday night.

At 9 a.m. Friday morning, the House began debate on the bill.
If members of Congress actually took the time to read the bill, they would have to read through the night at a rate of 626 words per minute before heading to the House floor.

"Too little tax cuts and too much spending"... But that is exactly what they said

Now who said exactly that?

When I Google that phrase it only shows up in one place

Now which part of this Obama plan is working? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

"After the stock market collapse in 1929, the Hoover Administration increased federal spending by 47 percent over the following three years. As a result, federal spending increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 6.9 percent in 1932 and reached 9.8 percent by 1940. That same year-- 10 years into the Great Depression--America's unemployment rate stood at 14.6 percent."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM

Right you are, Ebbie... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 01:13 PM

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 12:08 PM

Well said Donuel...

And in light of your comments, oughtn't we reference GOP Senate Leader Trent Lott's (R - Miss.) comments in praise of Strom Thurmond. I won't bother to look up the date, but we all know that it was of recent vintage.

The chickens have, indeed, come home to roost... and the millions of Americans who stood on the Mall this past January (and the tens of millions of us weeping privately in our homes) proclaimed that fact!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 11:54 AM

When Lyndon Johnson put his civil rights bill to Congress, there was a filibuster.

A record setting fillibuster.

One speaker went on for 24 and 32 minutes before leaving the floor (with the aid of a catheter)

The speaker was Strom Thurmon, the the proud Southern seperatist, racist and father to the son of a black woman.

The new chair of the RNC is M. Steele, a Republican negro.
His leadership now consists of congratulating all republicans for just saying no to any response to the economic crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM

Sorry lads, had run off and earn a living.

I won't linger here long, however, I had correctly posited here that the GOP of the past 40 years intentionally utilized racial divisions to secure executive power through a tactic that was labeled "The Southern Strategy. It's existence is irrefutable. It's racist foundation is readily apparant.

In reviewing some posts to this thread, I noted that some reactionary supporters were seeking to obfuscate the facts. I cannot let the various revisionist statements stand without pointing out that if the GOP had been clean on the Civil Rights obstruction issue, then Newt Gingrich would have had no need have turned apologist in 1995:

"But he (Gingrich) just as strongly insists that "Republicans have an obligation to reach out much more emphatically and more strongly to the black community and find ways: to communicate that we will in fact be protecting civil rights that we're not going to block-grant civil rights and, the federal government is going to stand firmly committed against discrimination. "

"Gingrich now acknowledges " ... the legitimate fear of African Americans who look back only 30 years ago to segregation, to state police who were beating people like John Lewis [then a young civil rights leader, now a Democratic House member from Georgia], and you can sense the legitimate, genuine fear we could slide back into that kind of environment."

(Both quotes taken from an editorial - "A New Tack on Affirmative Action", LA Times, August 8, 1995)

The GOP leader's words confirm his own party's racist legacy.   

Slan,
Danny

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 01:36 AM

Might that be because they are human beings, LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:49 PM

Indeed it does. Just like the North American Indians before us, Canadians are easily seduced by clever marketing strategies.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:10 PM

Peter T, I like that. It accepts part of the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:19 PM

Sawz,

Every time you post one of those raving frothing rants that are void of details or specifics, you sound more like Rush Limbaugh!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:52 PM

No, it is like living next door to a seductress, rather than a hag. The seductress is far more able to lead you down the garden path to your destruction.....

(note the Calvinist tone)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:08 PM

"Canada's big problem is that there isn't a thousand mile moat between Canada and the US." Peter T

Now 'fess up - aren't there some other nations that you are grateful not be a neighor to? Then you would have cause to complain.

Heck, on occasion I am glad that Canada neighbors us.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:59 PM

They aren't betting that the bill will fail Bobert they are doing their best to trample over the whole nation just so they can win while we all lose.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:48 PM

First of all, almost all of the 1100 page bill was available to the Republicans well before the vote... There weren't any surprises in it... IF there were then the Repubs wouldn't have been so quick to say, "Too little tax cuts and too much spending"... But that is exactly what they said... Which lead us to believe only one of two things:

1. They did have enough time to read the bill making them liars or...

2. The didn't bother to read the bill making them irresponsible...

Secondly, they telegraphed their intent to vote against the bill before Obama even met with them which lead us to believe one of two things:

1. They are betting on the stimulis to fail so they can go back to being the crooks in charge or...

2. They had come from thier palm readers and knew that Obgama wouldn't accept their paln for more trickle down economics

Thirdly, this current batch of repubs should be brought up on charges of treason... It's one thing to be in tne minority... It another to obstruct but hese folks think it's okay to just reject, yes reject, the current US governemnt... It is their job to represent their voters but they are AWOL and don't wish to play...

Reminds me of the brownshirts....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:48 PM

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:45 PM

Nah! far too much integrity!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:39 PM

You're not betting on Sarah Palin?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:29 PM

Seems like Mr Obama has been taken for a "sap", as I predicted months ago, the Clinton team are on their way to becoming the International face of America, while Mr Obama sinks ever deeper in the financial and domestic swamp.

Hillary the Hawk plays a mean hand!
Still a hot bet for first woman President.....anybody want to lay odds???

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:32 PM

Yeah, Canada's big problem is that there isn't a thousand mile moat between Canada and the US. The Great Lakes are just a down payment on that solution. Where are the glaciers when you need them?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:06 PM

I might add...we're quite LUCKY that we don't share a common border with Mexico (and thereby the rest of Latin America), as you do. If we did, the flood of illegal immigration into this country would be like a tidal wave. It would be one hell of a big problem. I have no idea what would need to be done in such a case...but it wouldn't be any easy thing to "fix", that's for sure.

With countries...as with businesses...location can be everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM

Oh, to the contrary. I am inviting you to sneak up here. C'mon, man...do it now! You can join our jams here if you play an instrument. A bunch of draft resistors came up here back in the 70's, and they were some of the most likeable guys I've ever met. I'm all for it.

p.s. I'm being whimsically humorous...don't make too much of it. We, like any other country on this planet, do attempt to police our borders and prevent illegal immigration. That's just normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:51 PM

So you are not inviting me to sneak into Canada but it is OK for Mexicans to sneak into the USA?


That's just not right. After all nice, fuzzball Canada has more money flowing in that is flowing out and the mean, stingy old USA has hundreds of billions more flowing out than is flowing in. It is so bad the the government has to borrow it back to keep afloat.

Now that is just not fair at all. Dang. I am going to protest to the UN.


Globe and Mail

Ottawa has ruled out amnesty for the estimated 200,000 undocumented workers toiling in Canada's underground economy, saying it would not be fair to those who have applied legally and are waiting in line, according to a letter obtained by The Globe and Mail. Allowing illegal workers to stay would likely "encourage more illegal immigration," noted Linda Arseneau of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's ministerial enquiries division in an Oct.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:38 PM

As for "the weed" in Cuba being fantastico...I have no idea. I didn't see anyone smoking weed while I was in Cuba.

I see people smoking weed all the time in Canada (normally in the privacy of their own homes)...but I'm not one of them. I don't smoke anything at all. Neither do I judge the people I know who do, because they are completely harmless and good people whom I consider my friends.

Cuba is not nearly as well off as Canada or the USA. But it never was... And it never would be...given where it is and the last few hundred years of history that led up to now. If you look at the neighbouring Latin American countries around Cuba, its poor people are considerably better off than in those countries, and its streets are far safer. Cuba is way better off now that it would be if Castro's revolution had not thrown out Batista. That's the part you don't get. They NEVER EVER had the possibility of living as you and I do in that country, but their lives improved considerably when Batista was thrown out.

You are trying to compare a lemon to an orange and saying, "Look! The lemon is more sour than the orange!" No kidding. ;-) To assess the value of a lemon you must compare it to the other lemons, not to the oranges. Compare Cuba under Castro to Cuba under Batista. Compare it to Mexico. Compare it to El Salvador. Compare it to Guatemala. Then you have a comparison that makes some kind of sense.

Compare Canada to the USA if you want. Fine. They are both "oranges". But don't try to compare Cuba to Canada or the USA in order to assess anything meaningful about Castro's revolution. They didn't start on the same playing field as we did here in North America. We were born lucky. Very lucky. We had it all, right from the start. They did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:02 PM

Yeah, Cuba's damn tough on drug traffickers. I was down there in 2000 and I had a very nice time. One guy on the street tried to sell me various drugs. I said I wasn't interested. He then offered to set me up with "a girl". I said I wasn't interested. He then offered to set me up with "a young man". I laughed!!! and I said "Now I'm REALLY NOT interested!" He smiled, shrugged, and walked off.

I guess that guy is leading a pretty risky life, eh?

Look, I think maybe you don't understand what I actually believe in. Would you understand me if I said to you that I am entirely in favor of both capitalism and socialism? And that I like a society that has both?

Think about it. I used to think I was a "socialist" until one day I realized that if I say I am a socialist, some people in this world will totally NOT understand what the heck I am talking about! (and I bet you're one of them)

So here's how it stands now. I am not a capitalist. I am not a socialist. I am not a Communist. I am not any kind of "-ist". I am just a human being who needs to earn some money and have some work I can do. I appreciate the very good points of both capitalism and socialism, and I like living in a democratic country that has both. I regard neither of them as something to be feared. They can both be misused. They can both be very beneficial. They harmonize well in a good system.

Canada and most of western Europe have fairly good systems in that respect. The USA needs to take a further look at what can be done to improve what you have now. It's reasonably good, but it could be considerably better.

We are both lucky to live where we are living, you and I. We started off life with advantages that people in many countries don't have.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 01:46 PM

What is the policy on illegal emigrants in Canuckistan?

It sounds like a utopia with free healthcare and all.

If were to be ignored by my government, unemployed and very poor, can I sneak into Canada and get a job so I can send money home?

You would support me with your tax money wouldn't you?

You would not mind if i lived with 6 other illegals in one house and worked so cheap that it depresses the wages that citizens earn would you?

You would not be so stingy and cheap that my kids could not ursurp public recources like education that is paid for by citizens would you?

After all I would only be seeking a better life which trumps the law.

Ev'rything free in Canada. Even a poor tailor is entitled to some happiness.

Or maybe I could save myself and sneak in to the real land of milk and honey, Cuba.

Wow man, I would really have it made there, right Comrade?

And the weed down there it is Fantastico No?

It wasn't until 2003 that Cuban officials admitted drug consumption, no matter how limited, was becoming a problem on the island. Until then, it was a "capitalist ill" introduced by unscrupulous tourists, although they acknowledged that there were Cubans who cultivated small amounts of marijuana or who sold bales of drugs found washed up on the shore.

The government fought this "incipient market" with a vengeance. In January 2003, early morning raids with drug-sniffing dogs on the homes of suspects left floors ripped up and sofa cushions slashed.

Where drugs were found, special Interior Ministry police units hauled away the entire contents of the residence, as for the most part approving neighbors looked on. And Cuba's already stiff penalties for drug trafficking were made even more stringent.

Last year, according to the Communist Party daily Granma, over 1,800 people were tried for dealing drugs. The article published Feb. 3 did not specify how many foreigners were among those prosecuted.

Just days ago, Cuban state-run radio reported that a Holguín court sentenced 13 Cubans to prison sentences of from six to 25 years for drug trafficking. According to the report the 13 confessed at their trial to being part of a drug network. No other information is available on the case. The only public knowledge of such trials comes from the usually reticent official government media.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 12:41 PM

"something that will in-fact "change" our country into a socialist regime"

Ha! ;-D You WISH! It's what you've always desperately needed in the USA...some genuine democratic socialism instead of the robber baron system you presently have in place....but I doubt you'll ever get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 09:30 AM

"American employers keep giving them instead of employing true redblooded Americans"

That was the purpose of E-Verify

E-Verify is fast, simple to use, and discriminates against nobody. It simply verifies that a person is legally entitled to work in this country. We know it sounds simple, but Congress found a way to screw it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 09:28 AM

Mexico would collapse tomorrow it the Billion$ sent by aliens to their relatives in Mexico stopped flowing.

Plus Mexico does not have to take care of their citizens that have entered the US illegally.

"Not only has this northbound flow of labor—as many as 400,000 to 500,000 emigrants annually—meant that the Mexican government isn't under intense pressure to provide for the welfare of half a million more people each year. It also has paid large dividends in terms of remittances. In 2007 an estimated $24 billion flowed back into Mexico from remittances, virtually all flowing south from the United States."

I am all for LEGAL emigration. America was built on legal emigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:41 AM

There was a defense...?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:24 AM

And the defense rests......

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM

You're right, Saws, now we'll have a bunch of illegal chowing down at the public trough, and sending their paychecks out of the country. Real smart, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:08 AM

Nobody said anything about their language or their tacos.

yours,

JH

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:58 AM

Yes, of course, it's those pesky illegal immigrants that drove the country to the brink of a depression, flooding the country with their Spanish language and their tacos, taking those underpaid jobs that for some reason American employers keep giving them instead of employing true redblooded Americans -- no redblooded American would be responsible for depressions.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:06 AM

"Kind of like the paper preceding the war preparations. But, silly me. That was the Republicans."

That is kind of like horse shit.

A. how many pages were in the bill? 5 pages
B. How long did they have to read it?
C. They did not have to vote for the bill and were not obligated to vote for anything they were not able to read.


Not One Person in Congress Read the 1,100 Pages

Canadian Free Press February 14, 2009

The "Stimulus Package" with over 1,100 pages was handed to law makers at 11p.m. on Thursday night and Pelosi wanted their votes the next day, because she was leaving for Rome to consult with the Pope.

Obama had promised at least 48 hours to read and understand the package bailout plan, and NOT one congressman has read the 1,100 pages, but with eyes closed, they voted for something they did not see, understand, comprehend, nor did they allow the voters to voice their opinions about something that will in-fact "change" our country into a socialist regime, not to mention...they just screwed-up the eVerify program!

Three key figures we need to replace ASAP in the Republican Party......

1) Arlen Specter (R-PA)
2) Susan Collins (R-ME)
3) Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

All three went against the advice of their fellow republicans and voted "Yes" on this package, while NOT ONE read the contents!!

Obviously....Our Congress is dangerous, out-of-control, and conducting business, not on behalf of the American people, but on behalf of their social acceptance to the next cocktail party in Washington.

They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves, and I hope Harry-da-Reid (D-NV) enjoys his $$billion some odd dollar grant (joy ride) on his super shuttle train between Las Vegas and Disney World, thanks to the stupid tax payers that voted for "Change," which will only amount to a $250 bonus to each person, the tax payer's token for using their empty heads...as Pelosi laughs all the way to the Vatican in her G-V jet to give the Pope his share of the scam money.

"Stimulus Package" to Give Jobs to Illegal Aliens

U.S. Border Patrol (Local 2544)

2-14-09 Congress has stripped language from the stimulus bill that would help ensure illegal aliens don't take jobs from Americans and legal immigrants. It is mind-boggling to think that our representatives are so spineless that they can't even stand up to the Hispanic Caucus at a time when jobs are disappearing at astonishing rates and many Americans are faced with financial ruin. E-Verify is fast, simple to use, and discriminates against nobody. It simply verifies that a person is legally entitled to work in this country. We know it sounds simple, but Congress found a way to screw it up.

Why would the Hispanic Caucus and our representatives be so opposed to using a simple program to help verify the legal status of workers? Good luck getting them to answer that question directly. It is this type of malfeasance and pandering that is largely responsible for driving this country to the brink of a depression.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 09:17 PM

Mebbe you just ain't lookin' hard enough, heric. ;-) Of course one party gets thrown out and the other gets elected whenever the economy tanks, we all know that...but didn't you notice certain regional bloc tendencies? Certain areas of the country that clung for a long, long time faithfully to one party....then suddenly abandoned it...and have since clung for a long, long time faithfully to the other party?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:39 PM

If we keep it in the "tree" theme, we could call him a "pitch man".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:35 PM

"Obama: I'm Not A Sap..."


             What should we call him?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: heric
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 05:34 PM

I just went through it and I don't see racism in that map. Maybe this is a Rorshach thing?

I do see colors flipping immediately after bad economic events.

I don't see the Civil War in FDR's first win (1932). I don't see it in Carter's big win or Carter's big loss. I don't see it in Bush Sr's big win or Bush Sr's big loss.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Alice
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:59 PM

Not sure if it is unique, but yes, racism and anti-racism underlies a lot of politics, not just in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:37 PM

Here we go...it's at this site:

USA election results - historical maps

Check it out! It's fascinating to see the shift that has occured. Try these years:

1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968

Then go right back to the pre-Civil War and follow it to the present day.

See how first one party, then the other, became the darling of the Deep South. See how the northeast was once a Republican bastion, then became a Democratic stronghold.

It was the civil war that put the Republicans in strong in the North and the Democrats in strong in the South. It was the civil rights issues in the early 60's that reversed those strongholds diametrically to the opposite.

It's frickin' incredible when you look at those maps and see the blatantly clear patterns emerging. I think that the issue of slavery and the Civil war and the continuing role it has played in shaping and damaging the political process in the USA is the single most dire thing that has ever happened to the country, bar none. It is THE most crucial wound in the American psyche. That is a situation unique in the western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:25 PM

If you look at the geographical distribution of the voting in the USA from the mid-1800's to now, it's fascinating. The Republicans began with their strength in the northern states, mostly where the Democrats are strong now. The Democrats were unbeatable in the Deep South. There was a website that showed this on a color chart for each election year, but I'm not sure how to find it now. They have almost totally reversed their geographical areas of dominance by playing various political games and courting various constituencies.

In short, southern reactionaries of the most extreme sort once voted solidly Democratic and did so until the early 60s. They now vote solidly Republican. They abandoned the Democrats en masse over the Civil Rights issue in the early 60's.

Northern intellectuals used to consider the Republican Party their bastion of reason...they now think it's the Democratic Party.

It's hilarious...and kind of sad. The USA is still suffering political fallout from the Civil War, which ended in 1865.

Both parties have pandered (at various times) to the most reactionary forces in the nation in order to secure votes. They have both held the other in contempt for doing so...yet both of them claim to be the voice of reason.

I have my doubts, in either case.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:15 PM

"The Congress people have tremendously able, gifted and hard-working staff members who not only perform the due diligence and discovery work, but network with each other so that allied subject-matter experts can weigh in on the technical significance of subsections within each Bill's content. These professionals know what the Bills contain. The resulting voting decisions (and public positions) of Congress members are 'informed' by the staffers." DannyC

I agree with Danny C. I used to work for a real estate developer and and a good part of my job was to read not only trade magazines but books and newspapers, marking things that were pertinent to my employer.

On the other hand I have a City Attorney friend who does not have the staff to do that. False economy, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:11 PM

Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

By Michael Zak
August 8, 2003

During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.

Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged Representatives and Senators to do "more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined". Though he shared Johnson's convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama's infamous "blacks in the back of the bus" law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM

That would be the Howard D Smith who was a leading member of the "Conservative Coalition", which in a highly bi-partisan fashion brought together the conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative, mostly Southern, minority of the Democratic Party, fighting to preserve segregation and racial discrimination...

Bi-partisan isn't always the right way to go. Depends on what the parties involved are after.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:53 PM

"...and was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely."

Yes, and from that scism, Richard Nixon's opportunistic Southern Strategy was born. The realignment became a fundamental element of the GOP's dominance of Presidential politics for 40 years. The GOP's success had been achieved by leveraging racial division... but it's all over now...

Gotta go... Got a gig in LouAVul ... Ciao, y'all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:49 PM

Also, look at the final Senate vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. A far higher % of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrtats. People should keep keep their facts straight, otherwise they look like blind partisans.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:35 PM

"...A Republican was on the floor for the duration speaking of the rash and radical nature..."


"...and was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:34 PM

True enuff, LH... no contradiction here. It's the above-reference "allied subject matter experts" (and their sponsors) within the power structures that build the positions that the mouthpieces assert.