Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 4 Jan 2004

Various big media television networks ^ | 4 Jan 2004 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

The Talk Shows

Sunday, January 4th, 2004

Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie and Reza Pahlavi, eldest son of the late shah of Iran.

MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark.

FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA).

THIS WEEK (ABC): Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Reps. Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO), Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Jane Harman (D-CA.); author Jessica Stern; Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution; and former Marine Special Operations Officer Kelly McCann.

[txradioguy]

I think the ONLY chance the RATS would have to pose a real challenge to Pres. Bush is if Liberman were to get the nod. But there's as much chance of that happening as there is of Clintoon telling the truth under oath.

[Pukin Dog]

The polls had Dukakis beating Reagan two days before the election, Reagan won 49 states.

Reagan never ran against Dukakis.

[mabelkitty]

So he won't be Hillary's courtier.

[Aeronaut]

I think the ONLY chance the RATS would have to pose a real challenge to Pres. Bush is if Liberman were to get the nod.

Imagine the love of America that would be generated in the Arab world if a Jewish President was elected.

[txradioguy]

**Imagine the love of America that would be generated in the Arab world if a Jewish President was elected.
**


About as much love as there is for us now, but I see your point. All the "grassy knoll" folks would just think their suspcion's had just been confirmed if 'ol Joe became POTUS!

[Aeronaut]

Thank you for your service to keep our freedom. It is very much appreciated.

[txradioguy]

Your thanks is very much appreciated Aero. I'm jsut glad I can do my part.

[Amelia]

More REP. voted for the civil rights act than DEMS in 1964.

Here's something else you're wrong about this morning. In the House, 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. In the Senate, 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for it.

[tickles]

Here's something else you're wrong about this morning. In the House, 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. In the Senate, 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted for it.
>>

but if it's put percentage wise is the percentage of republicans who voted higher then the percentage of democrats? I think it might be higher since the democrats controlled both of houses at that time, and that's probably what is meant when stated that more republicans voted for the civil rights act then democrats.

[txradioguy]

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. The Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.


Just a little statistical info to clarify things for Amelia.

[txradioguy]

At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."

The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."

[Amelia]

if it's put percentage wise is the percentage of republicans who voted higher then the percentage of democrats?

Yes, it is, because the Southern Democrats voted against it. However, the Civil Rights Act was pushed through by a Democratic president (Kennedy & then Johnson after Kennedy's death) and most of the Northern Democrats supported it, so the Democrats ended up getting the credit for it, and blacks, who had historically voted for "the party of Lincoln", especially in the South, began voting Democratic.

During the debates, many Republicans argued that the CRA was too big an expansion of Federal power, which seems to have been the beginning of the former Southern Democrats moving to the GOP side. The South has, since the Revolution, opposed giving the Federal government any more power than absolutely necessary.

[maica]

Do you remember the incessant Dem talking point that Texas was a 'weak governor' state, so the fact that GW was the Governor of Texas meant nothing? I keep waiting to hear that being the governor of a state with a population smaller than many American cities does not translate automatically to superior executive abilities.

I am still waiting!

[Amelia]

See #212.

[malia]

--" Clark dodges the answer with a reiteration of a more fair and more progressive tax code."

Yea, because Hillary Clinton hasn't written it yet, or better yet, she is still explaining it to him!

[Uncle Hal]

I think you are right that Hillary will run in 08, not 04, and Clark will be her running mate. I agree Clark is running in 04 to gain experience and name recognition. However, remmber Bush must win in 04 and the Democrats lose. If not, then Hillary would be frozen out in 08. Hillary wants the Democrats to lose in 04 but not by McGovern proportions where it hurts the party badly so that they are crippled in 08. Boy, politics is a dirty business.

[txradioguy]

Yes I rememeber hearing that junk. Gov. Dean thinks he's superior because all RATS think they have divine right to govern us "little people" because we don't know what's good for us and they, in their superior knowlege, do.

[patj]

I've thought all along that Clark was running this time around just to gain experience, name recognition, and money, and doing so at the behest of the Clintons in order to thwart Dean's campaign.

You might be on to something here. In '08 both Clark and Clinton run in the primaries to sew things up early and keep everything "in house".

[maica]

Some doctors think they are incapable of a wrong decision by divine right as well. So a Dem MD with a Napoleonic complex is a certifiable, triple X hazard to our country.

[txradioguy]

I saw your post. It still doesn't change the fact that without the support of the Republicans, the CRA of '64 wouldn't have made it out of comittee! JFK would be considered a Republican today. Johnson didn't sign the CRA out of the goodness of his heart, he simply saw the political writing on the wall. The fact that the RATS have stolen the title of the party of the minority is apalling. The only thing worse is that the Republicans have let them off the hook for how they stonewalled and almost defeated teh CRA.