I do not appreciate the generalized unfounded associations you make between the Republican party and white racists, no matter how well written they are! NO, the influence of racists in the party is NOT significant!
You provided no names of any "dixiecrats" who switched parties to become republicans. The best you could do was a generalized pronouncement and present a racist stereotype of southerners.
You could provide no facts because, on the contrary, all of the Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights amendment in 1964---STAYED DEMOCRAT---INCLUDING AL GORE SR and Robert Byrd!...only Thurmond switched parties.
The COFCC ain't voting republican either! They have an article smearing the republicans on their site, which you posted. And they certainly don't have any links to republican sites or candidates on their site, so your attempt to group them as the "racist wing" of the republican party, just doesn't fly!
Using your reasoning, I suppose that one could say that since radical Muslim terrorists are not going to vote for republicans, they are democrats!
David Duke is NOT a part of the National Republican Party, and so I do not believe that he defines the party in even the smallest way-although the Democrats would like him to. They like to ignore United States Senator Byrd and focus on some lowly county executive in Louisiana! Ignore Dodd's comments, and focus on Lott's......who, by the way, was punished by his party for his comments, while the democrats did nothing about Dodd's comments!
How many black Democratic Senators have there been? How about NONE. Republicans have had 3. How many black Democrats have been appointed to power positions in a Presidential administration? (attorney general, secretary of state, secretary of defense, chief of staff, press secretary, national security adviser, White House counsel) Bush appointed 6 minorities to his cabinet, (one was even a Democrat) and two blacks and a hispanic in the "power" positions---as a matter of fact minorities have filled 45 percent of the Bush administration's highest policy positions!
You are reguritating oft repeated Democratic false propaganda, and I am not going for it.
I apologize for offending you; it was not my intention. I do not want to extend this argument too long. But please allow me to answer a couple of your criticisms, because obviously I've angered you, and I want to show that I have some factual basis for my claims.
I actually did mention some names of Democrats who became Republicans and who were racist. But look, the bottom line is that, at the federal level, the Democrats used to have a strong liberal wing based in the North and a strong conservative wing based in the South. The conservative wing included many for whom issues of race -- or "states rights," insofar as those rights allowed the perpetuation of Jim Crow -- were paramount. The Democrats now have an overwhelming liberal wing and a weak conservative wing.
Look at these facts. Three of the four states that Thurmond won -- Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina -- started voting reliably Republican in federal elections right around the civil rights movement. That's not coincidence. You want names? Each of those voters has a name. Consider: in 1948, Dixiecrats got 87% of the Mississippi vote. Then in 1964, Republican Barry Goldwater got, yes, 87% of the Mississippi vote. In other words, the supporters of the Dixiecrats very quickly became the supporters of Republicans, at least on the presidential level. Similar numbers can be found for the other states that Thurmond won.
True, there may have been other reasons why Goldwater appealed to the South -- small government, for instance -- including many of the reasons I vote Republican today. But yes, in key southern states, Democrat voters became Dixiecrat voters, and they in turn became Republican voters at the federal level.
The C of CC does not endorse Republicans, but rather treats them as the Greens treat the Democrats: abdicators of the cause who are almost, but not quite, as bad as the other side. Trent Lott, a former Dem, spoke to this group, praised this group, and was enthusiastically supported by the group's president when he made his ill advised statements about Thurmond's candidacy.
Look, I'm not saying the Democrats don't race-bait too. Of course they do. But many southern Dems who once supported the Dems ultimately switched to the Reps by way of the Dixiecrats. If they had skipped the Dixiecrats but then went for Goldwater, I'd agree with you. But they didn't.
FYI.....I came across the following today.....
****The Black Vote****
"Democrats left Boston last week all fired up about John Kerry, save for one surprising group: the black vote," the Wall Street Journal says.
"That may explain why the Democratic nominee is dumping $2 million into outreach ads on Black Entertainment Television and urban contemporary radio," the newspaper said in an editorial.
"The Kerry camp's concern is that black support is miles wide, but only inches deep. A BET/CBS poll released on the eve of the Democratic convention found that just 27 percent of black voters are 'enthusiastic' about the nominee, and 45 percent say a Kerry presidency would make little difference in their lives. If you're a Democrat, this is worrisome because unenthused voters are more likely to stay home on Election Day. For Republicans, this is an opportunity to present the GOP as a viable alternative for the black electorate.
"Six months before an election, the black vote typically lags 10 points or so behind the white vote in intensity. Democrats usually close the gap in the interim by way of black media outlets and other get-out-the-vote efforts. But when the Tarrance Group conducted its battleground survey in June, it found that black voter intensity was trailing by more than 20 points. It also found that union voters, a Democratic constituency that comprises a disproportionate number of blacks, were less motivated by Mr. Kerry than white conservative Christians were by Mr. Bush."
---Greg Pierce, Inside Politics
August 3, 2004
you said, "How many black Democratic Senators have there been? How about NONE. Republicans have had 3. "
I have to say that that is very wrong. Carol Moseley Braun is black. Carol Moseley Braun is a democrat. Carol Mosely Braun is a senator from Illinois. The 3 black senators from the republican party that you mentioned were all during reconstruction. The republican party during reconstruction is shares nothing with the current incarnation of the republican party except for their name, and isn't too terribly relevant. As an aside, the frontrunner for the senate seat in illinois is barack obama, democrat and a black man.
You also said, " How many black Democrats have been appointed to power positions in a Presidential administration? (attorney general, secretary of state, secretary of defense, chief of staff, press secretary, national security adviser, White House counsel) Bush appointed 6 minorities to his cabinet, (one was even a Democrat) and two blacks and a hispanic in the "power" positions---as a matter of fact minorities have filled 45 percent of the Bush administration's highest policy positions!"
I think you need look no further than the administrations relationship with their secretary of state, Colin Powell, to really see what they really think of their high ranking minorities. It is well known and documented how the administration has repeatedly ignored Powell's foreign policy recomendations. They neutered him. Sure he may serve in a high policy position but he isn't affecting policy because the arent listening to him. They're treating him like a token. I'm willing to bet the other minority appointments have had similar experiences.