Worry Rises In Military Over Trump Decisions November 29, 2019 at 1:08 pm EST
“Tensions that have been mounting for months between some of the nation’s most senior military officers and President Trump are boiling over after his decision to intervene in the cases of three service members accused of war crimes,” CNN reports.
“A long-serving military officer put it bluntly, telling CNN ‘there is a morale problem,’ and senior Pentagon officials have privately said they are DISTURBED by the President’s behavior.
“Dismay in the Pentagon has been building over Trump’s sporadic, impulsive and contradictory decision-making on a range of issues, including his sudden pullback of troops in Syria. But now there are new and significant worries, as multiple military officials and retired officers say Trump’s intervention into high-profile WAR CRIMES CASES cannot be ignored.”
WORTH REPEATING Ex-GOP Lawmaker Says Republicans Are Disgusted
Former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) told CNN that Republicans are in public “standing with the president for the moment,” despite the impeachment inquiry prompted by the Ukraine scandal.
He added: “But there’s no question, having spoken to many of them privately, they’re absolutely disgusted and exhausted by the president’s behavior. They resent being put in this position all the time.”
All people of the world should be thankful for America instead of condemning it:
Then suddenly in the middle of the 18th century you begin to get some isolated Quakers coming out against it. But it’s the American Revolution that makes it a problem for the world. And the first real anti-slave movement takes place in North America.
The British don’t get around to freeing the slaves in the West Indies until 1833, & if the Revolution hadn’t occurred, might never have done so then, because all of the southern colonies would have been opposed.
As a result of the Revolution, slavery is confined to the South, and that puts the southern planters on the defensive. For the first time they have to defend the institution.
The elimination of servitude suddenly made slavery more conspicuous than it had been in a world of degrees of unfreedom. The antislavery movements arose out of these circumstances..
As far as most northerners were concerned, this most base and despicable form of unfreedom must be eliminated along with all the other forms of unfreedom. These dependencies were simply incompatible with the meaning of the Revolution....
Slavery required a culture that held labor in contempt. The North, with its celebration of labor, especially working for money, became even more different from the lazy, slaveholding South. By the 1850s, the two sections, though both American, possessed two different cultures.
in the Colonial period whites didn’t have to mount any racist arguments to justify the lowly status of blacks. In a hierarchical society with many degrees of unfreedom, you don’t bother with trying to explain or justify slavery or the unequal treatment of anyone.
“Racism develops in the decades following the Revolution because in a free republican society, whites needed a new justification for keeping blacks in an inferior and segregated place.”
But then be sure to read about what happened next, after this author's time frame breaks off:
How the Republican party with its "southern strategy" managed to become more and more attractive to white supremacists, racists, and xenophobes whose votes and support they are still seeking.
How the Republican party with its "southern strategy
That old conspiracy theory was debunked long ago. The Republican Party resurgence in the south was due to migration of northern upper-class whites to the south married with evangelical Christians of other social conservative who fled the Democrat party when they made a decidedly leftest turn during the George McGovern presidential campaign.
And no James social conservatives does not equate to "white supremacist, racists, and xenophobes" they were never more then a tiny minority outside your bigoted mind.
STRAIGHT REPORTING FROM WIKI: In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.
The "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support. This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era.
AND NOW HERE IS A NOD TO COMMENSA'S BULLSHIT: This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy". This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South, but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs rather than overt resistance to racial integration and that the story of this backlash is a national rather than a strictly Southern one.
AND NOW BACK TO SIMPLE, STRAIGHT FORWARD REPORTING: The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years. In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote. _____________ I guess Mehlman apologized just for the fun of it.
well, the left will never give up on it because they desperately need to hide behind that and other lies about the GOP and the south.
here's what's not a lie -
the filibuster against the civil rights act of 1964 was led by a democrat and card-carrying klan member, robert c. byrd.
blacks have republicans to thank for the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and several other pro-freedom policies .
the democrats on the other hand further enslaved blacks via the great society, and terrorized blacks via the terrorist arm of the democrat party - the KKK.
only a fool believes the democrats version of southern political history. democrats HAVE to lie because the truth is so damning.
This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century. Republicans may not be able to make significant inroads among black voters in the coming elections, but they would do well to demolish this myth nonetheless.
Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism — or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement — would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.
The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views. Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower. Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster. In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation. Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “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.”
Johnson did not spring up from the Democratic soil ex nihilo. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fifteenth Amendment. Not one voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eisenhower as a general began the process of desegregating the military, and Truman as president formalized it, but the main reason either had to act was that President Wilson, the personification of Democratic progressivism, had resegregated previously integrated federal facilities. (“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it,” he declared.) Klansmen from Senator Robert Byrd to Justice Hugo Black held prominent positions in the Democratic party — and President Wilson chose the Klan epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.
Johnson himself denounced an earlier attempt at civil-rights reform as the “nigger bill.” So what happened in 1964 to change Democrats’ minds? In fact, nothing.
President Johnson was nothing if not shrewd, and he knew something that very few popular political commentators appreciate today: The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s — at the same time as they were picking up votes from northern blacks. The Civil War and the sting of Reconstruction had indeed produced a political monopoly for southern Democrats that lasted for decades, but the New Deal had been polarizing. It was very popular in much of the country, including much of the South — Johnson owed his election to the House to his New Deal platform and Roosevelt connections — but there was a conservative backlash against it, and that backlash eventually drove New Deal critics to the Republican party. Likewise, adherents of the isolationist tendency in American politics, which is never very far from the surface, looked askance at what Bob Dole would later famously call “Democrat wars” (a factor that would become especially relevant when the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson committed the United States to a very divisive war in Vietnam). The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South — but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.
At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites — the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race — but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.
The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.
There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.
Trump Has Turned the Suburbs Into a GOP Disaster Zone
Los Angeles Times: “For decades, there was an unvaried rhythm to life in America’s suburbs: Carpool in the morning, watch sports on weekends, barbecue in the summer, vote Republican in November.
“Then came President Trump. The orderly subdivisions and kid-friendly communities that ring the nation’s cities have become a deathtrap for Republicans, as college-educated and upper-income women flee the party in droves, costing the GOP its House majority and sapping the party’s strength in state capitals and local governments nationwide.
“The dramatic shift is also reshaping the 2020 presidential race, elevating Democratic hopes in traditional GOP strongholds like Arizona and Georgia, and forcing Trump to redouble efforts to boost rural turnout to offset defectors who, some fear, may never vote Republican so long as the president is on the ballot.”
“With 11 electoral votes, Arizona is a bigger prize than Wisconsin — a Midwestern battleground both parties view as a key to the election — and the Grand Canyon State is expected to draw lavish attention and a fortune’s worth of advertising over the next year. Visiting last month, Vice President Mike Pence said he and Trump ‘are going to be in and out of Arizona a lot.'”
All the stuff they spout does not convince blacks, for they KNOW which party has their backs and which appeals most to racism.
which explains why the democrat party is in a panic today due to the amount of support they're LOSING among black americans.
the democrat party DESTROYED the black nuclear family. this much was acknowledged several decades ago by the last honest democrat in my memory - daniel patrick moynihan.
the 'great society' and it's 'war on poverty' has pissed away $17 TRILLION to date. black on black crime continues to set new records, black out of wedlock births continue at a rate above 70%, and black incarceration rates continued to climb.
enter trump with his record low black unemployment, prison reform designed to drastically REDUCE black incarceration, and for the first time in decades blacks have real opportunity. not empty promises seeking to buy their votes every two years.
The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.
Blogger James said... LOL @ Nazional Review. All the stuff they spout does not convince blacks, for they KNOW which party has their backs and which appeals most to racism.
The only media organization you listed that is consistency reliable is the Wall Street Journal and they don't sign on to your "southern strategy" conspiracy theory James.
The Pentagon doesn't comment on conspiracy theories at all.
😁Appearing Friday on CNBC TV, BET Founder Bob Johnson said he believes no current Democrat White House contender can beat President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.😁
A recent poll shows that only 30% of Americans believe that the NY Times gets things right "most of the time". WaPo is worse, and CNN is a complete joke (as based on their ratings these days).
I could spends days coming up with example after example after example after example of things that these media outlets have gotten wrong...
You have to realize that your opinion that these are legitimate news outlets is now a minority opinion.
For all practical purposes you are cutting and pasting stories about Bigfoot from the National Inquirer at this point.
The very first time I looked up the name Konstantin Kilimnik he was a Ukrainian political consultant who worked with Paul Manafort.
Then he became a Russian political consultant with ties to the Russian government and "ties" to Paul Manafort. No mention that those ties were employment.
Last time I looked he was listed as a Russian/Ukrainian and they were again acknowledging that he was Manafort employee.
CH SAID THIS: A recent poll shows that only 30% of Americans believe that the NY Times gets things right "most of the time". WaPo is worse, and CNN is a complete joke (as based on their ratings these days).
CH obviously took his information from a very questionable Republican biased source.
This survey surely represents a far more accurate view.
Among ALL ADULT Americans surveyed: On average, 55% of adults found the nine outlets in the survey credible.
63% of adults said CBS is credible. 61% of adults said NBC is credible. 60% of adults said ABC is credible. 59% of adults said The Wall Street Journal is credible. 53% of adults said CNN is credible. 52% of adults said The New York Times is credible. 51% of adults said Fox News is credible. 49% of adults said NPR is credible. 48% of adults said MSNBC is credible.
Among DEMOCRATS: On average, 69% of Democrats surveyed found the nine outlets in the survey credible.
81% of Democrats said ABC is credible. 80% of Democrats said NBC is credible. 79% of Democrats said CBS is credible. 74% of Democrats said CNN is credible. 72% of Democrats said The New York Times is credible. 67% of Democrats said MSNBC is credible. 65% of Democrats said The Wall Street Journal is credible. 60% of Democrats said NPR is credible. 42% of Democrats said Fox News is credible.
Among REPUBLICANS: On average, 44% of Republicans surveyed found the nine outlets in the survey credible.
70% of Republicans said Fox News is credible.* 50% of Republicans said The Wall Street Journal is credible. 50% of Republicans also said CBS is credible. 48% of Republicans said ABC is credible. 45% of Republicans said NBC is credible. 40% of Republicans said NPR is credible. 32% of Republicans said The New York Times is credible. 32% of Republicans said CNN is credible. 31% of Republicans said MSNBC is credible.
No wonder you are so low in your opinion, Ch. You are a misled TRUMP FAKE NEWS JUNKIE!!!! __________ *ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
😁Appearing Friday on CNBC TV, BET Founder Bob Johnson said he believes no current Democrat White House contender can beat President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.😁
He's not wrong. With Trump pulling 30% of the black vote he's already looking at a landslide at epic proportions. He may very well be the first Republican candidate to win the black vote since the Great Depression.
(CNN)Former Republican congressman Charlie Dent said Thursday some of his former colleagues in the House of Representatives have privately told him they are "absolutely disgusted and exhausted by the President's behavior."
Dent told CNN's Ana Cabrera on "Newsroom" that House Republicans are standing with the President at the moment because of base pressure, but said "they resent being put in this position all the time."
Dent, who is a CNN political commentator, cited the Trump administration trying to "pivot from the Ukraine scandal" by announcing the 2020 G7 summit at the Trump National Doral resort. The decision was later reversed.
"Moving from one corrupt act to another," Dent said. "I mean those types of head-exploding moments are just I think infuriating these members and I think they'd like to step out but they just can't because of their base at the moment."
Dent served as chairman of the House Ethics Committee from 2015 until 2016 and chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies from 2015 until 2018.
"I think a lot of members have to take a hard look at this," Dent said. "They can be more concerned about their election, or their legacies. And I would argue to many of them: your legacy is more important than the next election."
Scott A**hole should quit swallowing Trump's bathwater!
Dent said based on the facts as he understands them now, he would probably vote to impeach the President if he was still in the House. "I do think this rises to the level of impeachment," he said.
The former congressman said Democrats should not move forward on impeachment until they hear from key witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
=/====
Good advice if it doesn't take six months to get them to testify under oath.
40 comments:
Btw... this Shure Microphone is on black Friday sale!
Btw... this Shure Microphone is on black Friday sale!
the alky should buy one.
that way he can call for his nurse from the comfort of his hill-rom "recliner."
Worry Rises In Military Over Trump Decisions
November 29, 2019 at 1:08 pm EST
“Tensions that have been mounting for months between some of the nation’s most senior military officers and President Trump are boiling over after his decision to intervene in the cases of three service members accused of war crimes,” CNN reports.
“A long-serving military officer put it bluntly, telling CNN ‘there is a morale problem,’ and senior Pentagon officials have privately said they are DISTURBED by the President’s behavior.
“Dismay in the Pentagon has been building over Trump’s sporadic, impulsive and contradictory decision-making on a range of issues, including his sudden pullback of troops in Syria. But now there are new and significant worries, as multiple military officials and retired officers say Trump’s intervention into high-profile WAR CRIMES CASES cannot be ignored.”
WORTH REPEATING
Ex-GOP Lawmaker Says Republicans Are Disgusted
Former Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) told CNN that Republicans are in public “standing with the president for the moment,” despite the impeachment inquiry prompted by the Ukraine scandal.
He added: “But there’s no question, having spoken to many of them privately, they’re absolutely disgusted and exhausted by the president’s behavior. They resent being put in this position all the time.”
All people of the world should be thankful for America instead of condemning it:
Then suddenly in the middle of the 18th century you begin to get some isolated Quakers coming out against it. But it’s the American Revolution that makes it a problem for the world. And the first real anti-slave movement takes place in North America.
The British don’t get around to freeing the slaves in the West Indies until 1833, & if the Revolution hadn’t occurred, might never have done so then, because all of the southern colonies would have been opposed.
As a result of the Revolution, slavery is confined to the South, and that puts the southern planters on the defensive. For the first time they have to defend the institution.
The elimination of servitude suddenly made slavery more conspicuous than it had been in a world of degrees of unfreedom. The antislavery movements arose out of these circumstances..
As far as most northerners were concerned, this most base and despicable form of unfreedom must be eliminated along with all the other forms of unfreedom. These dependencies were simply incompatible with the meaning of the Revolution....
Slavery required a culture that held labor in contempt. The North, with its celebration of labor, especially working for money, became even more different from the lazy, slaveholding South. By the 1850s, the two sections, though both American, possessed two different cultures.
in the Colonial period whites didn’t have to mount any racist arguments to justify the lowly status of blacks. In a hierarchical society with many degrees of unfreedom, you don’t bother with trying to explain or justify slavery or the unequal treatment of anyone.
“Racism develops in the decades following the Revolution because in a free republican society, whites needed a new justification for keeping blacks in an inferior and segregated place.”
Read the whole thing.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/28/wood-n28.html
Read the whole thing.
But then be sure to read about what happened next, after this author's time frame breaks off:
How the Republican party with its "southern strategy" managed to become more and more attractive to white supremacists, racists, and xenophobes whose votes and support they are still seeking.
How the Republican party with its "southern strategy
That old conspiracy theory was debunked long ago. The Republican Party resurgence in the south was due to migration of northern upper-class whites to the south married with evangelical Christians of other social conservative who fled the Democrat party when they made a decidedly leftest turn during the George McGovern presidential campaign.
And no James social conservatives does not equate to "white supremacist, racists, and xenophobes" they were never more then a tiny minority outside your bigoted mind.
Not Debunked, not at all.
STRAIGHT REPORTING FROM WIKI:
In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.
The "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support. This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era.
AND NOW HERE IS A NOD TO COMMENSA'S BULLSHIT:
This view has been questioned by historians such as Matthew Lassiter, Kevin M. Kruse and Joseph Crespino, who have presented an alternative, "bottom up" narrative, which Lassiter has called the "suburban strategy". This narrative recognizes the centrality of racial backlash to the political realignment of the South, but suggests that this backlash took the form of a defense of de facto segregation in the suburbs rather than overt resistance to racial integration and that the story of this backlash is a national rather than a strictly Southern one.
AND NOW BACK TO SIMPLE, STRAIGHT FORWARD REPORTING:
The perception that the Republican Party had served as the "vehicle of white supremacy in the South", particularly during the Goldwater campaign and the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, made it difficult for the Republican Party to win back the support of black voters in the South in later years. In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.
_____________
I guess Mehlman apologized just for the fun of it.
That old conspiracy theory was debunked long ago.
well, the left will never give up on it because they desperately need to hide behind that and other lies about the GOP and the south.
here's what's not a lie -
the filibuster against the civil rights act of 1964 was led by a democrat and card-carrying klan member, robert c. byrd.
blacks have republicans to thank for the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and several other pro-freedom policies .
the democrats on the other hand further enslaved blacks via the great society, and terrorized blacks via the terrorist arm of the democrat party - the KKK.
only a fool believes the democrats version of southern political history. democrats HAVE to lie because the truth is so damning.
This magazine has long specialized in debunking pernicious political myths, and Jonah Goldberg has now provided an illuminating catalogue of tyrannical clichés, but worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century. Republicans may not be able to make significant inroads among black voters in the coming elections, but they would do well to demolish this myth nonetheless.
Even if the Republicans’ rise in the South had happened suddenly in the 1960s (it didn’t) and even if there were no competing explanation (there is), racism — or, more precisely, white southern resentment over the political successes of the civil-rights movement — would be an implausible explanation for the dissolution of the Democratic bloc in the old Confederacy and the emergence of a Republican stronghold there. That is because those southerners who defected from the Democratic party in the 1960s and thereafter did so to join a Republican party that was far more enlightened on racial issues than were the Democrats of the era, and had been for a century. There is no radical break in the Republicans’ civil-rights history: From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.
The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated. In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views. Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower. Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster. In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation. Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “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.”
Johnson did not spring up from the Democratic soil ex nihilo. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment. Not one Democrat in Congress voted for the Fifteenth Amendment. Not one voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eisenhower as a general began the process of desegregating the military, and Truman as president formalized it, but the main reason either had to act was that President Wilson, the personification of Democratic progressivism, had resegregated previously integrated federal facilities. (“If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it,” he declared.) Klansmen from Senator Robert Byrd to Justice Hugo Black held prominent positions in the Democratic party — and President Wilson chose the Klan epic Birth of a Nation to be the first film ever shown at the White House.
Johnson himself denounced an earlier attempt at civil-rights reform as the “nigger bill.” So what happened in 1964 to change Democrats’ minds? In fact, nothing.
President Johnson was nothing if not shrewd, and he knew something that very few popular political commentators appreciate today: The Democrats began losing the “solid South” in the late 1930s — at the same time as they were picking up votes from northern blacks. The Civil War and the sting of Reconstruction had indeed produced a political monopoly for southern Democrats that lasted for decades, but the New Deal had been polarizing. It was very popular in much of the country, including much of the South — Johnson owed his election to the House to his New Deal platform and Roosevelt connections — but there was a conservative backlash against it, and that backlash eventually drove New Deal critics to the Republican party. Likewise, adherents of the isolationist tendency in American politics, which is never very far from the surface, looked askance at what Bob Dole would later famously call “Democrat wars” (a factor that would become especially relevant when the Democrats under Kennedy and Johnson committed the United States to a very divisive war in Vietnam). The tiniest cracks in the Democrats’ southern bloc began to appear with the backlash to FDR’s court-packing scheme and the recession of 1937. Republicans would pick up 81 House seats in the 1938 election, with West Virginia’s all-Democrat delegation ceasing to be so with the acquisition of its first Republican. Kentucky elected a Republican House member in 1934, as did Missouri, while Tennessee’s first Republican House member, elected in 1918, was joined by another in 1932. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the Republican party, though marginal, began to take hold in the South — but not very quickly: Dixie would not send its first Republican to the Senate until 1961, with Texas’s election of John Tower.
At the same time, Republicans went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress. Many of them believed, wrongly, that the issue had been more or less resolved by the constitutional amendments that had been enacted to ensure the full citizenship of black Americans after the Civil War, and that the enduring marginalization of black citizens, particularly in the Democratic states, was a problem that would be healed by time, economic development, and organic social change rather than through a second political confrontation between North and South. (As late as 1964, the Republican platform argued that “the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.”) The conventional Republican wisdom of the day held that the South was backward because it was poor rather than poor because it was backward. And their strongest piece of evidence for that belief was that Republican support in the South was not among poor whites or the old elites — the two groups that tended to hold the most retrograde beliefs on race — but among the emerging southern middle class, a fact recently documented by professors Byron Shafer and Richard Johnston in The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (Harvard University Press, 2006). Which is to say: The Republican rise in the South was contemporaneous with the decline of race as the most important political question and tracked the rise of middle-class voters moved mainly by economic considerations and anti-Communism.
The South had been in effect a Third World country within the United States, and that changed with the post-war economic boom. As Clay Risen put it in the New York Times: “The South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the GOP. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.” The mythmakers would have you believe that it was the opposite: that your white-hooded hillbilly trailer-dwelling tornado-bait voters jumped ship because LBJ signed a civil-rights bill (passed on the strength of disproportionately Republican support in Congress). The facts suggest otherwise.
There is no question that Republicans in the 1960s and thereafter hoped to pick up the angry populists who had delivered several states to Wallace. That was Patrick J. Buchanan’s portfolio in the Nixon campaign. But in the main they did not do so by appeal to racial resentment, direct or indirect. The conservative ascendency of 1964 saw the nomination of Barry Goldwater, a western libertarian who had never been strongly identified with racial issues one way or the other, but who was a principled critic of the 1964 act and its extension of federal power. Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/
read the whole thing.
williamson (a never trumper btw) does a masterful job of laying waste to some of the most egregious lies told by democrats in the 20th century.
LOL @ Nazional Review.
All the stuff they spout does not convince blacks, for they KNOW which party has their backs and which appeals most to racism.
AOC is taking a shot at Peter Buttplug .
Can she end his Candidacy ?
How North Korea Soured on Donald Trump
The Atlantic:
“Kim Jong Un only wanted to engage with the president. Now he’s turning on him.”
Next in line: The Taliban?
The fear of losing even more Black voters to President Trump is terrifying the Socialist Democrats .
She's taking an even bigger shot at Trump. Can she end him?
Trump Has Turned the Suburbs Into a GOP Disaster Zone
Los Angeles Times:
“For decades, there was an unvaried rhythm to life in America’s suburbs: Carpool in the morning, watch sports on weekends, barbecue in the summer, vote Republican in November.
“Then came President Trump. The orderly subdivisions and kid-friendly communities that ring the nation’s cities have become a deathtrap for Republicans, as college-educated and upper-income women flee the party in droves, costing the GOP its House majority and sapping the party’s strength in state capitals and local governments nationwide.
“The dramatic shift is also reshaping the 2020 presidential race, elevating Democratic hopes in traditional GOP strongholds like Arizona and Georgia, and forcing Trump to redouble efforts to boost rural turnout to offset defectors who, some fear, may never vote Republican so long as the president is on the ballot.”
“With 11 electoral votes, Arizona is a bigger prize than Wisconsin — a Midwestern battleground both parties view as a key to the election — and the Grand Canyon State is expected to draw lavish attention and a fortune’s worth of advertising over the next year. Visiting last month, Vice President Mike Pence said he and Trump ‘are going to be in and out of Arizona a lot.'”
All the stuff they spout does not convince blacks, for they KNOW which party has their backs and which appeals most to racism.
which explains why the democrat party is in a panic today due to the amount of support they're LOSING among black americans.
the democrat party DESTROYED the black nuclear family. this much was acknowledged several decades ago by the last honest democrat in my memory - daniel patrick moynihan.
the 'great society' and it's 'war on poverty' has pissed away $17 TRILLION to date. black on black crime continues to set new records, black out of wedlock births continue at a rate above 70%, and black incarceration rates continued to climb.
enter trump with his record low black unemployment, prison reform designed to drastically REDUCE black incarceration, and for the first time in decades blacks have real opportunity. not empty promises seeking to buy their votes every two years.
The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/05/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson/
James...
You (of all people) are obligated to read what other people cut and paste...
Regardless of the source...
Or you can just choose not to use any cutting or pasting yourself?
Since you ask everyone to read garbage that are from horribly unreliable sources!
Jane, answer the question.
Ty.
Blogger James said...
LOL @ Nazional Review.
All the stuff they spout does not convince blacks, for they KNOW which party has their backs and which appeals most to racism.
Keven Williamson is black.
STRAIGHT REPORTING FROM WIKI:
Wiki? Really?
Keven Williamson is black.
actually he's whiter than i am.
but prominent blacks like walter williams, deroy murdock, larry elder, and thomas sowell among others have all written for NR.
Horribly unreliable sources?
Some of the recent: NYT, WaPo, WSJ, the Atlantic, wiki, L.A. Times, CNN, the Pentagon, etc.
The only media organization you listed that is consistency reliable is the Wall Street Journal and they don't sign on to your "southern strategy" conspiracy theory James.
The Pentagon doesn't comment on conspiracy theories at all.
😁Appearing Friday on CNBC TV, BET Founder Bob Johnson said he believes no current Democrat White House contender can beat President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.😁
James...
A recent poll shows that only 30% of Americans believe that the NY Times gets things right "most of the time". WaPo is worse, and CNN is a complete joke (as based on their ratings these days).
I could spends days coming up with example after example after example after example of things that these media outlets have gotten wrong...
You have to realize that your opinion that these are legitimate news outlets is now a minority opinion.
For all practical purposes you are cutting and pasting stories about Bigfoot from the National Inquirer at this point.
"
wi·ki
/ˈwikē/
noun
a website that allows collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users"
oh gosh Jane fucked the duck.
Great example of Wikipedia.
The very first time I looked up the name Konstantin Kilimnik he was a Ukrainian political consultant who worked with Paul Manafort.
Then he became a Russian political consultant with ties to the Russian government and "ties" to Paul Manafort. No mention that those ties were employment.
Last time I looked he was listed as a Russian/Ukrainian and they were again acknowledging that he was Manafort employee.
CH SAID THIS:
A recent poll shows that only 30% of Americans believe that the NY Times gets things right "most of the time". WaPo is worse, and CNN is a complete joke (as based on their ratings these days).
CH obviously took his information from a very questionable Republican biased source.
This survey surely represents a far more accurate view.
Among ALL ADULT Americans surveyed:
On average, 55% of adults found the nine outlets in the survey credible.
63% of adults said CBS is credible.
61% of adults said NBC is credible.
60% of adults said ABC is credible.
59% of adults said The Wall Street Journal is credible.
53% of adults said CNN is credible.
52% of adults said The New York Times is credible.
51% of adults said Fox News is credible.
49% of adults said NPR is credible.
48% of adults said MSNBC is credible.
Among DEMOCRATS:
On average, 69% of Democrats surveyed found the nine outlets in the survey credible.
81% of Democrats said ABC is credible.
80% of Democrats said NBC is credible.
79% of Democrats said CBS is credible.
74% of Democrats said CNN is credible.
72% of Democrats said The New York Times is credible.
67% of Democrats said MSNBC is credible.
65% of Democrats said The Wall Street Journal is credible.
60% of Democrats said NPR is credible.
42% of Democrats said Fox News is credible.
Among REPUBLICANS:
On average, 44% of Republicans surveyed found the nine outlets in the survey credible.
70% of Republicans said Fox News is credible.*
50% of Republicans said The Wall Street Journal is credible.
50% of Republicans also said CBS is credible.
48% of Republicans said ABC is credible.
45% of Republicans said NBC is credible.
40% of Republicans said NPR is credible.
32% of Republicans said The New York Times is credible.
32% of Republicans said CNN is credible.
31% of Republicans said MSNBC is credible.
No wonder you are so low in your opinion, Ch.
You are a misled TRUMP FAKE NEWS JUNKIE!!!!
__________
*ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
63% of adults said CBS is credible
That's a different question isn't it?
😁Appearing Friday on CNBC TV, BET Founder Bob Johnson said he believes no current Democrat White House contender can beat President Donald Trump in the 2020 general election.😁
He's not wrong. With Trump pulling 30% of the black vote he's already looking at a landslide at epic proportions. He may very well be the first Republican candidate to win the black vote since the Great Depression.
This should be in the archives for future use to prove that the are not sane@@!@
A never Trumpet
(CNN)Former Republican congressman Charlie Dent said Thursday some of his former colleagues in the House of Representatives have privately told him they are "absolutely disgusted and exhausted by the President's behavior."
Dent told CNN's Ana Cabrera on "Newsroom" that House Republicans are standing with the President at the moment because of base pressure, but said "they resent being put in this position all the time."
Dent, who is a CNN political commentator, cited the Trump administration trying to "pivot from the Ukraine scandal" by announcing the 2020 G7 summit at the Trump National Doral resort. The decision was later reversed.
"Moving from one corrupt act to another," Dent said. "I mean those types of head-exploding moments are just I think infuriating these members and I think they'd like to step out but they just can't because of their base at the moment."
Dent served as chairman of the House Ethics Committee from 2015 until 2016 and chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies from 2015 until 2018.
"I think a lot of members have to take a hard look at this," Dent said. "They can be more concerned about their election, or their legacies. And I would argue to many of them: your legacy is more important than the next election."
Scott A**hole should quit swallowing Trump's bathwater!
Dent said based on the facts as he understands them now, he would probably vote to impeach the President if he was still in the House. "I do think this rises to the level of impeachment," he said.
The former congressman said Democrats should not move forward on impeachment until they hear from key witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
=/====
Good advice if it doesn't take six months to get them to testify under oath.
Scott A**hole found his information on Drudge report
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/29/politics/charlie-dent-congress-trump-behavior-cnntv/index.html
Yeah, I'm sure they did knowing he'll run right over to CNN.
Give me a frigging break.
"This should be in the archives for future use to prove that the are not sane@@!@" Drunkard Alky.
Post a Comment