The Future of the Republican Party


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby rasb » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:32 pm

Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Greater civil rights are a far right issue. Civil rights legislation wins with Republican support, unlike Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.


Vince buddy,
Are you trying to state that the fact Abe. was a Republican has any relevance to 2008 politics?
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:40 pm

rasb wrote:
Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Greater civil rights are a far right issue. Civil rights legislation wins with Republican support, unlike Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.


Vince buddy,
Are you trying to state that the fact Abe. was a Republican has any relevance to 2008 politics?


Just pointing out hypocrisy. He has as much relevance as LBJ.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:43 pm

Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

I only brought up the Republican and Democrat voting patterns to refute your inference that civil rights were opposed by leftist. LBJ certainly couldn't have passed civil rights without the help of non-Southern Republicans, but to say that it was a "far right issue" is patently false, since Johnson did all the heavy lifting. With a few exceptions like Goldwater, all of the opposition came from Dixiecrats who were in the process of abandoning the Democratic party for the Republican party.

Whether you consider Affirmative Action to be a form of civil rights is irrelevant. The point is that it's a leftist ideology that has won out. My point is that the country has moved to the left over the last 50 years.

By the way, Lincoln had already been dead for a hundred years when all this was going on.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:03 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Civil Rights broke down along the Mason/Dixon line, not partisan lines. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican. And more Democrats than Republicans voted for both the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act in both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it is liberal Democrats who have always supported affirmative action, while conservative Republicans have always opposed it.

That's only because there were more Democrats in both houses. By the way Affirmitive Action isn't a civil right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

I only brought up the Republican and Democrat voting patterns to refute your inference that civil rights were opposed by leftist. LBJ certainly couldn't have passed civil rights without the help of non-Southern Republicans, but to say that it was a "far right issue" is patently false, since Johnson did all the heavy lifting. With a few exceptions like Goldwater, all of the opposition came from Dixiecrats who were in the process of abandoning the Democratic party for the Republican party.

Whether you consider Affirmative Action to be a form of civil rights is irrelevant. The point is that it's a leftist ideology that has won out. My point is that the country has moved to the left over the last 50 years.

By the way, Lincoln had already been dead for a hundred years when all this was going on.

Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:19 pm

Vince wrote:Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".

I never said that the right was against it. I'm just rejecting your insistence that the left was against it. Neither side was against it. It was a bipartisan effort, but LBJ did the heavy lifting.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Vince » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:32 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".

I never said that the right was against it. I'm just rejecting your insistence that the left was against it. Neither side was against it. It was a bipartisan effort, but LBJ did the heavy lifting.


My insistence is that being pro-civil rights doesn't move you to the left. Defending rights guaranteed by the Constitution is a right wing ideology, and there are plenty of historical and modern examples of it.
Vince
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:42 pm

Vince wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Vince wrote:Yeah and LBJ has been dead for 35 yrs. and out of office for 40. Your insistence about the right being against civil rights are the only thing "patently false".

I never said that the right was against it. I'm just rejecting your insistence that the left was against it. Neither side was against it. It was a bipartisan effort, but LBJ did the heavy lifting.


My insistence is that being pro-civil rights doesn't move you to the left. Defending rights guaranteed by the Constitution is a right wing ideology, and there are plenty of historical and modern examples of it.

I get your point. You took exception to me lumping civil rights with women's rights, gay rights and abortion.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:44 pm

Paul Krugman's view of the future of the Republican Party, assuming they lose the White House:

the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opini ... ugman.html
tandfman
 
Posts: 15042
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:58 pm

tandfman wrote:Paul Krugman's view of the future of the Republican Party, assuming they lose the White House:

the G.O.P.’s long transformation into the party of the unreasonable right, a haven for racists and reactionaries, seems likely to accelerate as a result of the impending defeat.

This will pose a dilemma for moderate conservatives. Many of them spent the Bush years in denial, closing their eyes to the administration’s dishonesty and contempt for the rule of law. Some of them have tried to maintain that denial through this year’s election season, even as the McCain-Palin campaign’s tactics have grown ever uglier. But one of these days they’re going to have to realize that the G.O.P. has become the party of intolerance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/opini ... ugman.html

Sounds about right. It bypasses the fiscal mismanagment that the Reps have been known for since 1980 . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest