• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans[W:466]

Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

In 1964 there were only 33 Republicans in the senate of those 27 voted for the civil rights bill and 6 against it. Democrats numbered 67 which 46 voted for, 21 against. The House was about the the same, out of 248 Democrats who voted 152 voted for it, 96 against. The Republicans in the house broke down to 138 for and 34 against.

Slightly over 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill, the Democrats were 61% for the bill in the house and 69% in the senate. Just be thankful back then there wasn't party line voting like today.

Ouch! That's going leave a mark!
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

How did he vote? ;)



Oh no, I based it on the available evidence. There were 11 Republican Congressmen in the South. Guess how they voted? ;)

Yes there were 11 Republican Southern Congressmen. One senator and 10 House members. If you take the time to review these members records and any Republican that voted against the Civil Rights Bill you will find more times than not, they had a good record in supporting other civil rights legislation prior but some were not happy with Title II. They felt it infringed on the liberty of an individual and violated states rights. Goldwater, senator from Ar. was one who voted against the bill for those reasons. Not because he was racist. His voting record proves otherwise. His view was you can't legislate morality.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

In 1964 there were only 33 Republicans in the senate of those 27 voted for the civil rights bill and 6 against it. Democrats numbered 67 which 46 voted for, 21 against. The House was about the the same, out of 248 Democrats who voted 152 voted for it, 96 against. The Republicans in the house broke down to 138 for and 34 against.

Slightly over 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill, the Democrats were 61% for the bill in the house and 69% in the senate. Just be thankful back then there wasn't party line voting like today.

Hey, I'm with ya. What I think is funny though is that people refuse to admit that those divisions in the parties were based on regional differences and not so much party ideology. It keeps being demonstrated and people just refuse to acknowledge that the "Democrats racists" and "Republicans non-racist" narrative doesn't really work across geographic lines. Republicans in the South voted just like Democrats in the South. The Civil Rights Act in all of its forms was from a congressional perspective a North v. South issue. Northern Democrats started courting blacks almost immediately after the civil war. Southern Democrats didn't. The reasons are just more than obvious and that people are attacking this lady for pointing out that the South has a history of racism and that some of those attitudes influence how a black president would be seen is simply ridiculous.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Yes there were 11 Republican Southern Congressmen. One senator and 10 House members.

I should have edited that. It was actually 11 House members and 1 Senator. Guess how they all voted?

If you take the time to review these members records and any Republican that voted against the Civil Rights Bill you will find more times than not, they had a good record in supporting other civil rights legislation prior but some were not happy with Title II.

Lmao, spare me. What I care about is evidence. If you want to review their voting records go for it. I work with what I am given. You threw out the CRA'64 and voting records? I responded in kind. Now: How did Southern Republicans vote?

They felt it infringed on the liberty of an individuals and violated states rights. Goldwater, senator from Ar. was one who voted against the bill for those reasons. Not because he was racist. His voting record proves otherwise. His view was you can't legislate morality.

Let me get your argument correct. If Republicans opposed the act, they have valid reasons like states rights. However, if Democrats opposed it, it's part of their racist history? Is that really how you want to go about this? Because I think I've shown conclusively that the narrative of both parties is a lot more complex than that. As a matter of fact, I think we've established that Democrats opposed desegregation and CRAs on the grounds that they violated their states rights. Was Bary Goldwater's concern grounded in longed, but those of Democrats who voted the same way he did not? Be careful.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

I should have edited that. It was actually 11 House members and 1 Senator. Guess how they all voted?



Lmao, spare me. What I care about is evidence. If you want to review their voting records go for it. I work with what I am given. You threw out the CRA'64 and voting records? I responded in kind. Now: How did Southern Republicans vote?



Let me get your argument correct. If Republicans opposed the act, they have valid reasons like states rights. However, if Democrats opposed it, it's part of their racist history? Is that really how you want to go about this? Because I think I've shown conclusively that the narrative of both parties is a lot more complex than that. As a matter of fact, I think we've established that Democrats opposed desegregation and CRAs on the grounds that they violated their states rights. Was Bary Goldwater's concern grounded in longed, but those of Democrats who voted the same way he did not? Be careful.
If you really want to get to the truth of the matter you will take the time to delve into it deeper instead of using the issue to claim conservatives/republicans are racists and sexists. It's a fact those Republicans serving in Congress at that time did have a good record in support of civil rights legislature introduced by Ike. When talking about the Southern vote it is usually refers to the states that were part of the confederacy. You will find an overwhelming number of these Democrats had no record of supporting any civil rights legislation in their time. It might also interest you in knowing the Republican Party in the 1940's had already endorsed equal rights for women as part of their platform long before the civil rights bill. It's time to stop the race baiting and war on women.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Oh please, they were DEMOCRATS.

The Democrat party has DEVOLVED to insulting its own supporters.

Landrieu apparently thinks voters are dumb enough to buy into her false narratives.


Hell, the entire Democrat party thinks their supporters are stupid.

:2rofll:
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Greetings, VanceMack. :2wave:

Malcolm X warned them in 1964 that they were chumps for voting Democrat, and expecting their lives to get better. Have they remembered what he said 50 years ago? Not so far, it appears. :screwy:
I wish people would get reality. Any time you vote for a party and party ticket you lose. Blacks shouldnt vote for democrats and they shouldnt vote for republicans. They should vote for solid candidates. So should whites. So should Hispanics. The reason why the country remains so ****ed up is because people remain so mindlessly committed to a party and ideology.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

I wish people would get reality. Any time you vote for a party and party ticket you lose. Blacks shouldnt vote for democrats and they shouldnt vote for republicans. They should vote for solid candidates. So should whites. So should Hispanics. The reason why the country remains so ****ed up is because people remain so mindlessly committed to a party and ideology.

Nice sentiment but in the real world politicians vote party so you have to choose the party that holds more of your values than the other
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Nice sentiment but in the real world politicians vote party so you have to choose the party that holds more of your values than the other
They vote that way because they know they can get away with it. Low information voting is an across the board curse. You want to change things for the better, then you have to stop dancing every time your party tugs your strings.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

I wish people would get reality. Any time you vote for a party and party ticket you lose. Blacks shouldnt vote for democrats and they shouldnt vote for republicans. They should vote for solid candidates. So should whites. So should Hispanics. The reason why the country remains so ****ed up is because people remain so mindlessly committed to a party and ideology.

:agree: When party became more important than the people they represent, we got what we currently have! Negotiating, which was done in the past by both parties, has been replaced "my way or the highway," type thinking, also by both parties. Not good!
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

:agree: When party became more important than the people they represent, we got what we currently have! Negotiating, which was done in the past by both parties, has been replaced "my way or the highway," type thinking, also by both parties. Not good!
I became active with the Libertarian party back in 2003. I left shortly thereafter because they do the same stupid "A REAL Libertarian only believes.......". I remain a Libertarian but I dont vote party tickets. I would have for Hillary over McCain, but only because I think (hope) that if/when Hillary becomes president, Bill will actually run the show. Clinton has the morals and values of a rat, but he was a damn good president.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

:agree: When party became more important than the people they represent, we got what we currently have! Negotiating, which was done in the past by both parties, has been replaced "my way or the highway," type thinking, also by both parties. Not good!

It will be good to see Harry Reid replaced. The leader of the party of "no vote."
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

:agree: When party became more important than the people they represent, we got what we currently have! Negotiating, which was done in the past by both parties, has been replaced "my way or the highway," type thinking, also by both parties. Not good!
And yet here we are, watching the RW attack one the most middle of the road members of the Senate.....and you, as usual, do not call out your brethren.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Exactly! 2 weeks ago, the Picayune was squarely in the tank for Mary. Now? Not so much.

Um, Varney is a reporter and columnist, not a member of the editorial staff, with a RW bias. He speaks for himself, not for the paper as a whole.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Republicans are calling on Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu to apologize after she suggested Thursday that President Obama's deep unpopularity in the South is partly tied to race.


Anyone in the GOP who doesn't recognize the fact that the GOP has close to zero support from Blacks in the USA Is out of touch with reality

Does anyone have any idea why so few Blacks support the GOP/



Read more here: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP

____

Well lets face reality, Senator Landrieu's comments were right on target. When Blacks finally got the vote in 1964, Whites in the South which was predominantly Democratic, left to join the Republican Party. Members of the rightwing GOP have used posters at Republican rallies referring to Obama as a monkey and no republican stepped in to say this is wrong. One cannot blame African Americans from running from the GOP as if the devil himself were after them. Also, since Obama is the first African American president, racism in America is at an all time high....it is fear from Whites that they are losing the upper hand. The Tea Party came into focus because they were so against this president. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Senate Minority leader, said on Obama's first Inauguration eve that he and his party would do everything in their power to make sure Obama failed. If the President of the United States fail, then the American people will fail. There is gridlock in the senate because these Republicans simply hate the African American president because he is black.

Fortunately for President Obama, the US consists of more than just white men/women; it was Latinos, Gays, Liberals, Independents, College students, Asians, moderates and African Americans who placed him in office the second time. By the year 2040 the changing demographic (Latinos) in America will alter drastically the voting pattern of the US.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Liberals should be embarressed as hell that the race card is all their party has. "It's because Obama is black", is probably the most idiotic statement in human history.

This is a common human trait.

For example, if someone criticizes the political policies of the government of Israel, the rightwingnuts call them "anti-semetic," or a "joo-hater."

Someone criticizes Obama, and they get labeled "racist" by some of the tree-huggers.

People are more alike than they realize sometimes.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Exactly! 2 weeks ago, the Picayune was squarely in the tank for Mary. Now? Not so much.

Most black people - whether they're from the South or not - wouldn't even take note of Landrieu's words given that the point she's making is so obvious. But Republicans -- the see-no-racism party -- are all in a swivet.

Gov. Bobby Jindal, who last year said that conversations about race are themselves problematic, called Landrieu's remarks "remarkably divisive." Roger Villere, the state chair of the Republican Party, said they are "insulting to me and every other Louisianian." Rob Manness, the tea-party Republican running against Landrieu, called on her to apologize.

If Louisiana could manufacture merchandise the way Republicans manufacture outrage, our economy would be humming. But, unfortunately, all this phony anger, all this pretend injury gets us nowhere but deeper into the abyss of denial about our country and region's record on race.

Were there nonracist reasons to vote against Barack Obama in his two presidential runs? Of course. A voter could have believed that those two Republican tickets offered better solutions than the Democratic ticket did. That said, unless we mention race, how do we explain Obama in 2008 performing 10 points worse among white Louisiana voters than Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry had performed in 2004?

Obama didn't do well anywhere in the Deep South. The region now belongs to Republicans. But Louisiana stood out as the state that had the single biggest drop in white support for the Democratic ticket. Remember: Kerry wasn't just a liberal but a Massachusetts liberal. He wasn't just a Massachusetts liberal, but one whose campaign speeches could put a crowd to sleep. And yet, among white voters in Louisiana, Kerry did 10 points better than his successor: the more handsome, the more electrifying candidate who said he said he was fired up and ready to go.

Would the pro-Kerry, anti-Obama voters admit that racism played a role in their curious voting pattern? Probably not. The overwhelming majority would cite some other reason. But unless we believe that the only racists left are the ones who identify themselves as racists, we should believe that race played a role in Obama's poorer showing at the Louisiana polls.

Throughout the country and throughout the South, Republicans have done everything they can do to whip up resentment toward the president. Maybe that's why when Landrieu said that race has played a role in Louisiania's disapproval of Obama, Republicans were the hit dogs who hollered. But only the most partisan Democrats would believe that racism is endemic to the Republican Party.

When David Duke got 55 percent of the white vote during his 1991 gubernatorial run, he didn't just attract Republicans. There also were so-called blue-collar Democrats who crossed party lines to give their support to the Klansman. Are we to believe that in the intervening years all of Duke's supporters have died, moved away, stopped voting or turned their hearts away from racism?

Isn't it more reasonable to believe that a good percentage of those persuaded by Duke's racist rhetoric are around today?

Anybody who has complained about racism since January 2009 has likely heard, "But Obama is president!" That response implies that America can't simultaneously have a race problem and a black as man president. It's faulty logic, for sure, but let's say that America's electing Obama twice does prove that our country has moved beyond race. What does it mean that Louisiana has rejected him so soundly?

Mary Landrieu's comments about Obama and race followed by phony Republican outrage: Jarvis DeBerry | NOLA.com
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Um, Varney is a reporter and columnist, not a member of the editorial staff, with a RW bias. He speaks for himself, not for the paper as a whole.

The editorial staff allowed to write his article for the Picayune.

Don't me wrong, the Picayune is still and will always be a Left wing propaganda rag, just not for Mary.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

This is a common human trait.

For example, if someone criticizes the political policies of the government of Israel, the rightwingnuts call them "anti-semetic," or a "joo-hater."

Someone criticizes Obama, and they get labeled "racist" by some iof the tree-huggers.

People are more alike than they realize sometimes.

Yeah, but the Leftists sound off with a religious fanaticism.
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

Yeah, but the Leftists sound off with a religious fanaticism.

And you think the rightist's don't?
 
Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

____

Well lets face reality, Senator Landrieu's comments were right on target. When Blacks finally got the vote in 1964, Whites in the South which was predominantly Democratic, left to join the Republican Party. Members of the rightwing GOP have used posters at Republican rallies referring to Obama as a monkey and no republican stepped in to say this is wrong. One cannot blame African Americans from running from the GOP as if the devil himself were after them. Also, since Obama is the first African American president, racism in America is at an all time high....it is fear from Whites that they are losing the upper hand. The Tea Party came into focus because they were so against this president. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Senate Minority leader, said on Obama's first Inauguration eve that he and his party would do everything in their power to make sure Obama failed. If the President of the United States fail, then the American people will fail. There is gridlock in the senate because these Republicans simply hate the African American president because he is black.

Fortunately for President Obama, the US consists of more than just white men/women; it was Latinos, Gays, Liberals, Independents, College students, Asians, moderates and African Americans who placed him in office the second time. By the year 2040 the changing demographic (Latinos) in America will alter drastically the voting pattern of the US.

Right, because if Obama was all white and not bi-racial, Conservatives would follow him into the fires of hell. Is that what you're saying?
 
Back
Top Bottom