Texans Are Tired of Rick Perry, Totally Heart Ted Cruz and Still Support Paula Deen

Categories: Politics

Thumbnail image for ted cruz.jpg
People seem to like Ted Cruz.
The Koch Bros might be emptying their change purses in order to keep Texas from tinting blue, but the state is in no danger of becoming a real battleground, new polling suggests. Also: People continue to think in large numbers that other states should not mess with Texas. Also: That's a weird question to ask on a poll.

Public Policy Polling surveyed registered voters in late June. Among the questions it asked Republicans: Who would you vote for in a 2016 Republican primary featuring Senator Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan and other really uninventive candidates?

Cruz rolled, collecting 27 percent of the vote, 12 points higher than his nearest competitor (Bush).

Here are some other results:

- People were about split on whether Cruz should run for president. Which means a lot of people think he should run for president. Which means a lot of people are weird.

- No one's quite sure what the hell Senator John Cornyn is doing in Washington, but he would still smoke either state Senator Wendy Davis or San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro in a Senate race, just more proof that this isn't becoming a battleground state anytime soon.

- Only 34 percent said gay people should be allowed to married, but 64 percent said they should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, as long as they're not all out there shoving it our faces, knowwhatImean?

- Texans hate Hillary Clinton -- except when compared with Rick Perry. In hypothetical presidential elections featuring the Democratic frontrunner, Clinton lost every time out, except when pitted against Perry. In a fake Clinton-Perry matchup, she won 48-44. In other words: Rick Perry, your time is up.

- Respondents were asked whether they approved or disapproved of Texas becoming a majority-minority state. Respondents did not like being asked this. Respondents asked again, Wait, this thing is anonymous, right? You know I don't have to do this. In the end, 44 percent of respondents said they were "not sure," more than on any other question.

- Forty-six percent of those surveyed retain a favorable opinion of Paula Deen. Twenty-one percent said they don't like her, and 32 percent banged their head against the wall, grumbling, "Why do I still have a landline?"

- Almost 80 percent of respondents said people should not mess with Texas. We assume that the other 20 percent are just hoping someone has the balls to.

My Voice Nation Help
150 comments
darrylrs
darrylrs

perry and cruz are both morons. anyone who does not believe in evolution of thinks the earth is 6000 years old or believe people and dinosaurs lived at the same time is not qualified to be president.

clynn686
clynn686

What's funny is a lot of people didn't know Perry began his political career as a Democrat. Go figure!

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@darrylrs

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Don't see anything in there about science, evolution, religion or dinosaurs.  Thanks for playing, please collect a wonderful door prize on your way out.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@darrylrs And anyone who thinks that those two believe those things is an even bigger idiot.

clynn686
clynn686

@RTGolden1@darrylrs The Constitution says that the president must be a natural-born citizen. "The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born Citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born 'in' the United States, the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parents who has met U.S. residency requirements," So in short: Cruz is a citizen; Cruz is not naturalized, therefore Cruz is a natural-born citizen, and in any case his mother is a citizen. You can read the CRS memo yourself http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

darrylrs
darrylrs

@RTGolden1 @darrylrs sounds like an anti climate change moron to me. i don't want any prize from anyone who believes in a talking snake.

darrylrs
darrylrs

@everlastingphelps @darrylrs both have stated that they do not believe in evolution and cruz is a tea party hero and many teabaggers believe the other two statements.

rzimmerman1
rzimmerman1

@Myrna.Minkoff-Katz 

So you're thinking that Perry was a "dixiecrat" when he was elected to the Texas House as a Democrat in 1984, campaigned for Al Gore in the 1988 election and jumped ship to became a Republican in 1989? He's a RINO if there ever was one... 

clynn686
clynn686

@mavdog How can you campaign for Al gore & then call yourself a Republican?

clynn686
clynn686

@mavdogHere is another Cruz quote you may get a kick out of “The senior senator from Arizona urged this body to trust the Republicans. Let me be clear, I don’t trust the Republicans. I don’t trust the Democrats, and I think a whole lot of Americans likewise don’t trust the Republicans or the Democrats, because it is leadership in both parties that has got us into this mess."



RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog Or to put it more accurately, Perry is a politician, who has only one ideal: The acquisition and retention of power and influence.

There is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans at high levels.  The 'issues' we all debate get so overwrought about are merely fodder the pols feed to the masses.  Divide and conquer carried to its natural end of divide and subjugate.  Does anyone thing Perry really gives a shit if someone has an abortion? He walks that plank because it is a good sturdy plank in the Texas platform.  Lots of fundamental religious types go apeshit over abortion and texas has a lot of fundamental religious types.

The real difference I see between a politician like President Obama and Gov Perry is polish.  Obama is more adept at talking this way and walking that way.  Perhaps he's simply more intelligent, perhaps he has better handlers.  Perry will never have that kind of smooth sophistication, his tongue will forever be tied into a clove hitch that his brain can't unravel.

observist
observist topcommenter

@mavdog  No way - following the Republican party line a mere 97% of the time for a mere 30 years makes you RINO. These are telltale signs of impure Republican blood.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@RTGolden1

I am guilty of nothing that you point out.

Not all republicans are the way anyone thinks they are, and not all democrats are the way anyone thinks they are. if either were that homogeneous it would be quite a boring world of politics, wouldn't it?

the point in the response to zimmerman is to call perry "a RINO" should have a basis in fact, as in: he proposed X which is not a republican ideal, or he was against Y which is a republican ideal. Instead zimmerman's justification was that perry is too much a self-interested opportunist...like either party has an exclusive on that!

perry is a bona fide republican, as republican as the day is long....

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog Now you are guilty of the same thinking and generalization that leads to discrimination and racism.  Not all Republicans are the way you think they are, a growing number of them are becoming disaffected with the way the party is moving.  The only problem they have: lack of options.  To switch to Democrat now would be to run to the opposite extreme.  The vast majority of People are somewhere in the middle, politically.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rzimmerman1

oh, ok, so you don't really have any actual policies of perry to lead you to conclude he isn't a loyal republican, that perry isn't pushing republican ideas, you just think he can't be a loyal and true republican because of his ego and propensity to prioritize his self interest.

yeah, THAT sure shows he isn't a loyal and true republican if anything does....real republicans would never be like that!

rzimmerman1
rzimmerman1

@mavdog

It's actually pretty obvious that Perry is an opportunist who doesn't hold any firm belief in anything. He will do and say whatever he thinks it takes for him to hold on to power. He thought it would be much smarter to call himself a Republican in Texas, so that's what he did. People like Perry cannot be trusted...

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@rzimmerman1

could you elaborate on why perry is "a RINO if there ever was one"? What positions has perry taken, what programs has he championed, that can be viewed as leaning democrat as opposed to republican?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

you've forgotten about wallace who certainly fits the mode of "dixiecrat" post '48...with wallace running for president in '68 as an independent rather than a dem it fits the mold perfectly.

observist
observist topcommenter

@clynn686@observist The point was to illustrate the split surrounding the Civil Rights act was not Democrat-Republican but dramatically North-South.

It's also a good illustration of voting blocks around that time.  If the South threw in with one party or the other, they would make the winning coalition.  If they went 3rd party, they'd be disenfranchised.

clynn686
clynn686

@observist The reason I ask is because you seem to be insinuating that the 10 Southern Republicans who voted against the bill. We're not just voting against the bill itself or what was in the bill. But were voting against Civil Rights in the South. We can't really say for sure if they were or not. But that doesn't stop you from using it as your rational for just how racist the SOUTHERN Republicans were. .Or still are in your opinion. I think we all understand just how racially motivated most things in the South in those days were. From everything from commerce to politics. I never questioned that. But where you and I differ is I agree that race DID play a part in the transformation of the political landscape in the South. Where as you seem to be saying it was the driving force. I actually believe that after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 opened up a new tide of thinking in the New South where the political winds changed from the Democrats racial divide & segregation to one of economics & commerce. Along with the young voters & the Northerners moving into these regions. That mixed WITH Democrats like Wallace who left the party for the GOP is what I believe is the explanation for the spike that "A readers" graph likes to point out. Where as you are convinced that Jim Crow party alone that parted ways with the Left and began tainting the waters of the GOP in the South. And by your logic the GOP moved from a Northern faction to a Southern one and in more words than less pretty much adopted the mentality of it's new hosts ugliest traits over the coarse of time. Believe it or not, there were Southerners that did not share the Jim Crow philosophy. And therefore were more than likely very eager for some change to their region. I think the Republican idea of upper class wealthy Republican society is what appealed most to the Jim Crow faction in the South. Most of these Southerners were wealthy land & business owners, so the Republican party only made sense after the Democrats became the self proclaimed "new civil rights party" (I don't think they ever really called themselves that. But it's definitely what they sold to the voters) But however it went down you can't deny that the Democrats did not just absolve themselves from their sorted racial history because they passed that bill. When the same man that signed the very bill that Dems love to tout made them the party of civil rights, says something like ”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they've  got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.” You can see why people like me question the TRUE nature of their so called compassion. And if the GOP adopted it's Southern host racist mentality, then how did someone like this come to be where he is at in this day & age http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTJeKq3EPP0&feature=player_embedded#at=521

clynn686
clynn686

@observist@clynn686Ok so what was your point in posting this?

         the house vote on the Civil Rights act:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

observist
observist topcommenter

@clynn686@observist   My point is not that every single resident of the South was a Democrat until 1964 when every single one of them re-registered as Republican.  Politically the South was more like a 3rd party that had formed something of a coalition with Northern Democrats.  As the Civil Rights movement grew, it became a wedge between the Northern and Southern Democrats - hence the 1948 Dixiecrats.  Yes, Republicans had gained ground in the South between "48 and "60, but the "64 election was like a watershed, and the deep South (MS, AL, GA, SC) where most of the serious racial strife was concentrated, shifted dramatically to the Republicans.   

You can couch it in terms of "states rights" and "limited government" but the right the Southern states were primarily concerned with was the right to own slaves in the 19th century and the right to segregate and oppress in the 20th century, and they wanted to limit the government from imposing integration.

observist
observist topcommenter

@clynn686 @observist    The graph was created by "a reader" using objective facts that anyone can look up, not opinions or theories.  The data is the data - it doesn't matter who put the data points in a graph.

clynn686
clynn686

@observist And I like the part on that article you got the graph from where it says almost immediately "A reader created the above chart" So that checks out. As long as we're basing facts on "A reader"

clynn686
clynn686

@observist@clynn686 Actually I know what I said or "meant to say" cause I'm the one who said it. So if you feel my response is ambiguous in anyway then just say so and ask me to elaborate further and I will be happy to do so.

Let me try to start new here & approach this from a different angle. From what I am understanding. What you are trying to say is: Before 1964. The same Southern Democrats who oppressed blacks in the South by violating their Civil Rights, left the Democratic party for the Republican Party due primarily to “a racist reaction to the Civil Rights act”? And that led to those SAME racist Democrats I.E. George Wallace “bolting” to the Republican party in 1964. Because (I dunno) they felt like the Democratic party had become a party of negro loving "pinkos" and they refused to lend their support to such a cause. And figured. Since the Democrats cared so much about negro rights that they could have that party. And so there forth pledged allegiance to the Republicans?

I'm paraphrasing here so please don't accuse me of being racist.

 

observist
observist topcommenter

@clynn686 

From your post:

"What gets me is how you try to say the Southern Democrats didn't like their party taking a stance on Civil Rights. So they ran to the VERY party that championed Civil Rights? Is that what I'm suppose to believe?"

So you didn't call it THE party of Civil Rights, you called it the VERY party that championed Civil Rights. I can only read what you wrote, not what you thought you meant when you wrote it.

 Here's the house vote on the Civil Rights act:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

I didn't say Republicans are racist, I said Southerners are racist.  As they've switched from Blue to Red, and Republican strength has waned in the Northeast and West, the Republican party has effectively distilled down to a more concentrated Southern core, and subsequently become relatively more racist. This is not to say that there is no racism anywhere else, or that racism hasn't diminished substantially nationwide.  

And again.  The South was the only Democratic holdout in an Eisenhower landslide in 56, and the only Republican holdout in a Johnson landslide in 64.  You're a silly partisan fanboy if you don't think that had anything to do with the racist reaction to the Civil Rights act.




clynn686
clynn686

@mavdog I agree with the point you make about it hindering people's ability to vote not being able to have an I.D. But I argue that it will in fact affect Republican voters as well. I still believe it should be done. But I will say that we need to figure out a way to make sure people who use the excuse that they can't afford it are able to have access to an I.D. in some form or fashion. And I feel you may be making Ted Cruz argument about Obama & the Dems trying to get people hooked on Welfare. Because you just admitted most poor people tend to vote Democratic. Care to elaborate why being "POOR" is a deciding factor in voting Democrat???

clynn686
clynn686

@observistAnd BTW I never "came off the point that Republicans were "THE party of Civil Rights" I said both parties have fought for Civil Rights. And if you want to unravel the knot of who did it first. I argue that we can go all the way back to Abraham Lincoln who authored the Emancipation Proclamation and even paid for it with his life. Without that! We're not even having this discussion. And I never said The South NEVER went from blue to red. I argued the reasoning behind the change was not just race driven as the public school system indoctrinates our children to believe. I admit that mavdogs point about Nixon was valid & one that I WAS overlooking. But that was it. Show me in any post I made where I ever said anything to support your claims. I think you have misinterpreted what I am trying to say. C'mon man! Ya gotta keep up.


clynn686
clynn686

Also while MLK never actually pledged his allegiance to either party. He did endorse Eisenhower & later voted for Kennedy. 

clynn686
clynn686

This is an expert from an article I found in my research. I think it says it better than I can. References some literature I would encourage all Americans to read before we just start teaching our kids a VERY one sided view of just what actually happened in our history.

clynn686
clynn686

@observist "

"Liberals will never tire of calling conservatives racist, because it’s always a show-stopper, a way of cutting off further debate on any issue where a liberal is likely to lose.  So don’t expect it to go away any time soon.  (Though why Republicans aren’t better at “punching back twice as hard,” e.g., by pointing out the permanent racist legacy of the Democratic Party, noting the vote tally for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc., is beyond me.  Another example of Republican rhetorical incompetence.)

Gerard Alexander began a thorough debunking of this theme in the Claremont Review of Books several years ago (“The Myth of the Racist Republicans“), and Sean Trende continues the job with a fine column today on RealClearPolitics, “Southern Whites’ Shift to GOP Predates the ’60s.”  It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s a few highlights:

In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” . . .

But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson’s 52 percent. He carried most of the “peripheral South” — Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida — and made inroads in the “Deep South,” almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

Even in what we might call the “Deepest South” — Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi — Eisenhower kept Stevenson under 70 percent, which might not seem like much until you realize that Tom Dewey got 18 percent in Georgia against FDR in 1944, and that this had been an improvement over Herbert Hoover’s 8 percent in 1932.

In 1956, Eisenhower became the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a plurality of the vote in the South, 49.8 percent to 48.9 percent. He once again carried the peripheral South, but also took Louisiana with 53 percent of the vote. He won nearly 40 percent of the vote in Alabama. This is all the more jarring when you realize that the Brown v. Board decision was handed down in the interim, that the administration had appointed the chief justice who wrote the decision, and that the administration had opposed the school board.

Nor can we simply write this off to Eisenhower’s celebrity. The GOP was slowly improving its showings at the congressional level as well. It won a special election to a House seat in west Texas in 1950, and began winning urban congressional districts in Texas, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia with regularity beginning in 1952.

It’s worth going back and re-reading Alexander’s dissection of the academic scholarship on this subject, and especially the conclusion:

The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers’.

P.S. While we’re on this subject, have a look at Kevin Williamson’s “Desegregation Before Brown” over at NRO, which helps correct that badly broken record about Barry Goldwater."

observist
observist topcommenter

@clynn686@observist 

OK, at least you've come off the point that the Republicans were THE party of Civil Rights, and you've acknowledged that the South shifted from Blue to Red.  So, we just need to determine if the shift was MAGIC or not.  It wasn't instantaneous - the Southern Democrats voted for 3 different 3rd party presidential candidates in "48, "60 and "68 because they didn't like the Democrats' position on civil rights, and they didn't like the Republicans who were still, in essence, the party of the Lincoln and The North.  

http://www.100bestwebsites.org/alt/evmaps/electoral-maps.htm

However, in Eisenhower's 1952 and 1956 landslide victories, the only states that voted against him were Southern - i.e. The Solid South that had voted Democrat in every election since 1876.  In 1960 the South voted for Kennedy, but AL and MS voted 3rd party for Byrd.  But in 1964, when Johnson won in  a lanslide, the only states aside from Goldwater's home state of AZ to vote Republican were Southern.  So, after almost 100 years of voting Democratic, the South went from being the lone Democratic outlier in "56 to being the lone Republican outlier in "64.  I suppose it could be that they just crossed a magic threshold of prosperity and decided to vote Republican for the first time in 100 years in that election, which just coincidentally happened to be a couple months after the Civil Rights act was passed.  It could be that all the  protest marchers being hosed down and beaten, and the sit-ins and bus strikes and forced school integration and Martin Luther King speeches and all that didn't really amount to much in the minds of Southerners compared to their opinions about foreign policy, and that's why they decided to vote for Goldwater.  It could be that LBJ - "the master of the Senate" - didn't know WTF he was talking about when he said the Civil Rights Act lost the South for the Democrats for a generation. 

But let's face it. We have a two-party system and the racist South had a choice of voting for the party that screwed them in 1863 or the party that screwed them in 1964.  They chose the former.  And if you don't think race was the primary issue that animated them at that time, then you choose ignorance over truth.  Here's a little reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLDn7MjbF0


mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

the court didn't invalidate the civil rights act, they ruled that a section of the act was unconstitutional. the section they struck required some but not all areas of the country to get pre-approval from the Justice dept to make any changes in their election procedures. the rest of the act is still in force.

Roberts was nominated by George Bush. The court ruled for IN voter ID law, tossed out AZ. in TX case, it wasn't a ruling validating the law, it was a ruling that the lower court should take a 2nd look and the injunction was lifted.

many issues with a voter ID requirement; one there isn't a verified need, voter fraud at the voting booth hasn't been shown to happen, fraud is usually in mail balloting; it's difficult for the elderly and poor w/o transportation to get an ID if they don't have one.

no citizen sould need to pay ANYTHING to vote. the use of a "poll tax" was one of the Jim Crow laws used to exclude the poor from voting. it is clear the ID requirement disportionally affects the poor, which typically vote more for dems. it does our country a disservice, we should be encouraging more voter turnout not erecting barriers.

clynn686
clynn686

@mavdog@clynn686@observist  Funny you mention it because the Voting Rights Act was signed into law due to a campaign by Southern Democrats to overturn the results of the Civil War. And it's not like Texas overturned it. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional and overturned it. "The court struck down the formula the law uses to determine where discrimination lives (and therefore, which jurisdictions should be covered), saying the dates are too old to be reliable. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in writing for the majority, the country has changed dramatically since that era. African-American electoral participation is at levels undreamt of in 1965." And this is a Supreme Court nominated by your President. So what does that say? As for a voter ID. Why not? How can you compare this to Jim Crow laws? I know, you may say something like "Some people can't afford the cost of an ID or even when there is free ID they have to provide a birth certificate that can cost up to $25.00 which is similar to the poll tax imposed in southern states during the Jim Crow era." I remember when Eric Holder tried to compare the 2 as well. If you don't have a job where you can afford 25 bucks to buy an ID then that says a lot about where our so called leaders are taking this country. FYI the argument for unemployed voters who can't afford an ID works both ways. It doesn't just directly affect Democratic voters. And there is no proof of this. Which is why the Supreme Court struck it down. You're reaching now and there is no one here to support you in these claims. BTW this law has been enacted in 30 states. And when you have Black Panthers intimidating voters at voting sites in Philadelphia, I ask you, where are the laws protecting THOSE voters in this "New America" And when you have people like Melowese Richardson vote 6 times for Obama. Then I argue these voters are asking for stronger restrictions. And rightfully so.

clynn686
clynn686

@observistWell if Eisenhower was to moderate to be Republican by todays standards .Then Kennedy would be to Conservative to be a Democrat by today's standards. I say that because of mavdogs original comment "Democrat President Johnson pushed thru Congress his predecessor Democrat President Kennedy's Civil Rights initiative" I was dispelling his notion that "the southern Democrats bolted from the Democrat party and aligned themselves with the Republican party, becoming the Nixon "Southern Strategy" that helped Nixon win the 68 election." Guess who else used States Rights to win an election? Ronald Reagan. But I suppose that would be the only times in history that a politician EVER convinced voters they were in favor of something just to get their votes. and observist if you want to argue the point that Dems were doing it before Republicans, we can go all the way back to Lincoln. The point is that during the time America saw a shift in the South from blue sates to red states many OTHER factors could be used as arguments as to why. Such as commerce and the boom towns that were popping up in the south at the time or religious factors.  But as usual race takes precedence. I can't deny that race was NOT one of those factors. But I can tell you America as you know was a MUCH different place then. And voters on both sides in many states were a prejudice people. Which is what brought the need for our leaders to sign laws against racial divide and prejudice on both sides of the aisle . My point is that the Democratic party & the Democratic party ONLY! Owns these stains of prejudice laws in our history. I know Dems would LOVE to be able to wash them away because Republicans used that same prejudice against them to win their votes in the southern region. But that does NOT justify the rational that the 2 parties SOMEHOW magically switched. If that were the case then show me the laws similar to Jim Crow that Republicans ever passed. Show me the entities like the KKK that Republicans ever created. Sorry. But that belongs to Democrats & Dems alone.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@clynn686

interesting article, but the premise isn't borne out. from the article:

in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

"droves"? the lower tercile increased its votes for republicans by almost 19%. the % also roughly correspond to the ethnicity in the terciles. the fact of the matter is the southern whites went republican.

the falacy in their conclusion that economics was the driver of the rise of republicans in the south is there is commingling of the 2 issues. the wealthy southerners dominance of the business sector was threatened by changes in the social hierarchy that was being championed by the Democrats. 

observist
observist topcommenter

Didn't mean to post pics - the Wiki link did it on its own.  But the newspaper headline is a nice touch showing what BS it is the Republicans where THE party of Civil Rights.

observist
observist topcommenter

@clynn686@observist@mavdog  From the Wikipedia entry on "Dixiecrat"

When Roosevelt died, the new president Harry Truman established a highly visible President's Committee on Civil Rights and ordered an end to discrimination in the military in 1948. Additionally, the Democratic National Convention in 1948 adopted a plank proposed by Northern liberals led by Hubert Humphrey calling for civil rights; 35 southern delegates walked out. 

So, there you have it.

1) The Democrats were taking steps on Civil Rights before Eisenhower (who, BTW, was far too moderate to be a Republican today)

2) Southern democrats didn't like their party taking a stance on Civil Rights. Do you know who Strom Thurmond and George Wallace are?  

It's fine if you're a conservative/libertarian, but you can't change history to suit your current partisan affiliation.  

clynn686
clynn686

@observist@clynn686@mavdog You are right though. I should have put something there showing that I got it from Wiki. That is the only copy & paste I did. But I was trying to prove a point. And it is still backed up with proof in history. It was not my intention to plagiarize anyone. But I can see your point. I will be sure to make it a point to note WHEN I am using quotes in the future. But this idea of the 2 parties switching over race 

is a myth. And one that is slowly being disproved. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0

clynn686
clynn686

Where is the proof of that. Please! Give me some names.

clynn686
clynn686

@observist @clynn686 @mavdog I never passed it off as my own. As a matter of fact I have used a lot of info I found on the net to make my point here. Doesn't make it any less true. What gets me is how you try to say the Southern Democrats didn't like their party taking a stance on Civil Rights. So they ran to the VERY party that championed Civil Rights? Is that what I'm suppose to believe?

wcvemail
wcvemail

@mavdog @clynn686 The term "Dixiecrat" actually goes back to the 1948 Democratic convention, when AL and MS walked out of the convention in response to Truman's nascent civil rights initiatives, including his 1947 directive to integrate the Armed Forces. Strom Thurmond ran for Pres as an official Dixiecrat, based on a Southern states' gathering in OK in 1948.

clynn686
clynn686

@mavdog@clynn686Look at the big brain on mavdog with his high school diploma. The Eisenhower administration declared racial discrimination a national security issue, as Communists around the world used the racial discrimination and history of violence in the U.S. as a point of propaganda attack.The day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, that segregated schools were unconstitutional, Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children.He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. The 1957 act for the first time established a permanent civil rights office inside the Justice Department and a Civil Rights Commission to hear testimony about abuses of voting rights. Although both acts were much weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since 1875. So just remember. Before ANYBODY bolted anywhere. Republicans were championing this cause BEFORE Democrats.

clynn686
clynn686

@mavdog @clynn686 And they say our children aren't being indoctrinated in public schools. Don't like the outcome so you change the rules? Is that it?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@clynn686

when you get to high school and take American History you'll hopefully learn that when the Democrat President Johnson pushed thru Congress his predecessor Democrat President Kennedy's Civil Rights initiative, the southern Democrats bolted from the Democrat party and aligned themselves with the Republican party, becoming the Nixon "Southern Strategy" that helped Nixon win the 68 election.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...