Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans
More Democrats voted in favor (overall) because there were more overall.
Well, I'm glad you finally got that out of your system. Now, let's move on to the second part:
..but that's not your argument. Simply put, more northern Democrats voted against it than southern Republicans did. Simple.
Huh? Do you understand what is being written or do you just post as you see fit? What was stated is that voting for the CRA'64 wasn't based on party lines, it was based on GEOGRAPHY and TIES TO THE CONFEDERACY. How was this proven? Two facts, 1 - Southern states voted against the CRA'64 - Fact. All 13 former confederate states voted against it. Fact. Do you have ANYTHING which disproves those facts? No? Okay, then this conversation is done.
It's quite clear that racism was MORE entrenched in the south than anywhere else, but it's a fallacy to use that as a defense of the Democratic Party.
Nobody has used it to defend anything. What was stated was that the narrative you're telling is ridiculous, simplistic and far from reality. The
facts - pesky things they are - show that the Democratic Party was divided. How can this be proven? Again,
facts. The party was
undisputably divided by the numbers alone. The majority of Democrats were in favor of the CRA'64. There was a minority that was against it. How was that minority defined? It was defined by the fact that it held office almost without exception in the South and in confederate states (13 of those states provided 116 of the votes).
Now, how do we confirm that it was along geographic lines? Again - facts - we check to see how Republicans voted. Even as a minority, Republicans - the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS - voted against the bill. We have to check a third issue, how did Northern Republicans and Democrats vote? Without much of a difference. They were pretty much unilaterally in favor of it. Again, your narrative? Democrats - bad! Republicans! Good! Breaks down under any sort of scrutiny and there isn't a mangled sentence you make that can change that now.
Racism (and racist Democrats) did exist elsewhere throughout the country, and while overall...both Parties supported the civil rights act of 1964, that can't be said of any of the previous attempts at civil rights legislation. The Republicans are clearly the majority factor in every attempt at achieving civil rights legislation from it's very beginning right up to 1964. So, it's a fallacy to claim the party that had historically opposed (including the President) civil rights up to that one vote was the driving factor, or more a factor in support of civil rights is revisionist nonsense.
Are you, are you reading facts? Yes or no? Okay, here we go again - let's prove you are reading:
1. How did Southern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
2. How did Southern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?
3. How did Northern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
4. How did Northern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?
Okay, now that you've answered those questions. Did the Democratic voting base who elected those racist Democrats
and Republicans Congressmen/Senators cease to exist after 1964? Where did they go? Did they migrate out of the South? Now remember, the statement was that Obama is unpopular in the South partly because he's black. For that statement to be
untrue, there simply can't be a sizeable percentage of the Southern population which was in full support of those racist Democrats and Republicans you enjoy telling and omitting about. We both know they didn't. They stayed put. Some migrated out. Some stayed Democrats, some became Republicans. Do you think 50% of the South moved North or suddenly became embracing of multicultural values? Lol. Get serious mac.