Martin Luther King

[CaptnKirk]

He was a Republican !

Come on Black America, everyone knows this - fall in line with the Agenda, and think the Party Monolithic Thought.

There are no 'Dirty Tricks', just dirty Democrats.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
He was a Republican !

Come on Black America, everyone knows this - fall in line with the Agenda, and think the Party Monolithic Thought.

There are no 'Dirty Tricks', just dirty Democrats.

Not everyone may be aware of the history, so a brief summary:

Racism lingered especially in the South as a region, not a party. The party distinctions date to the civil war, wheh the republicans were the North and the democrats, the South.

As most know, the civil war was not simply 'the war to end slavery'; there were conflicts on such things as huge tarriffs passed by the north at the south's expense.

The democratic party continued in the south, but they increasingly were at odds with the national party as the national democrats became the party of ending racism.

For example, Harry Truman was an early leader by integrating the military and making a point of forcing black appointments to the federal court, having to use his recess power.

JFK stumbled onto the issue when events occured and became a real leader of the morality of ending racism, while limited politically. LBJ was able to get the civil rights bill passed - and he knew the price would be to lose the south for the democrats, the south that was the key to the presidency the democrats had mostly held for 35 years, but he did it anyway, to the democrats' credit; to the republicans' shame, they fully exploited race to convert the south to the republican party with the 'Southern Strategy'. LBJ remarked as he signed the bill that the democrats with that bill were losing the presidency for a generation at least. Close elections the south decided have proved him right since.

In the civil rights bill, those voting for it most were the non-southern democrats, followed by the republicans, with most of the opposition coming from the southerners.

African Americans recognize the policies and support the democratic party 90%. Almost no republicans are still explicitly racist or segregationists; they do differ from the democrats on everything from anti-poverty programs to improving education in poor areas, though, which are policies worse for most blacks than the democrats' policies.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Modern republicans make the baby jesus cry.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Modern politicians make the baby jesus cry.

fixed for accuracy

 

[Craig234]

You have it wrong, he had it correct Eaglekeeper.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You have it wrong, he had it correct Eaglekeeper.

I know you are but what am I :roll:

Not everyone may be aware of the history, so a brief summary:

Racism lingered especially in the South as a region, not a party. The party distinctions date to the civil war, wheh the republicans were the North and the democrats, the South.

As most know, the civil war was not simply 'the war to end slavery'; there were conflicts on such things as huge tarriffs passed by the north at the south's expense.

The democratic party continued in the south, but they increasingly were at odds with the national party as the national democrats became the party of ending racism.

For example, Harry Truman was an early leader by integrating the military and making a point of forcing black appointments to the federal court, having to use his recess power.

JFK stumbled onto the issue when events occured and became a real leader of the morality of ending racism, while limited politically. LBJ was able to get the civil rights bill passed - and he knew the price would be to lose the south for the democrats, the south that was the key to the presidency the democrats had mostly held for 35 years, but he did it anyway, to the democrats' credit; to the republicans' shame, they fully exploited race to convert the south to the republican party with the 'Southern Strategy'. LBJ remarked as he signed the bill that the democrats with that bill were losing the presidency for a generation at least. Close elections the south decided have proved him right since.

In the civil rights bill, those voting for it most were the non-southern democrats, followed by the republicans, with most of the opposition coming from the southerners.

However, this was a very good summary of the historical facts surrounding each party's relationship to both the slavery issue and the civil rights era.

African Americans recognize the policies and support the democratic party 90%. Almost no republicans are still explicitly racist or segregationists; they do differ from the democrats on everything from anti-poverty programs to improving education in poor areas, though, which are policies worse for most blacks than the democrats' policies.

This is where I disagree with you...racism is not a systemic or even national problem...it exists in varying degrees, and is best handled at the state or even city or community level...the problem I see is that while the Democrats speak to "minority" issues, Democrats have tangibly accomplished little for minorities...just look at cities like Detroit or Los Angeles...Democrat strongholds with large minority communities that remain fanatically loyal to the party, yet don't have much to show for it...and then you have New York City, which is enjoying a huge urban revival under the leadership and guidance of two consecutive Republican mayors.

I will probably get flak for saying this, but I think the Democrats treat many minority communities as voter sheep much as the Republicans rely on the Bible belt...cater to a demographic with a very narrowly focused series of political interests, and pretend that you "represent them."

I find it ironic that Democrats complain when black Republicans evoke MLK...when you have winners like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson doing the same exact thing...they "speak" to the concerns of "their" communities, but what exactly do they have to show for it besides abusing their race card playing privileges?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Modern republicans make the baby jesus cry.

They did this because Loretta Scott King just died.

There is no bounds to how low Republicans will go.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
This is where I disagree with you...racism is not a systemic or even national problem...it exists in varying degrees, and is best handled at the state or even city or community level...the problem I see is that while the Democrats speak to "minority" issues, Democrats have tangibly accomplished little for minorities...just look at cities like Detroit or Los Angeles...Democrat strongholds with large minority communities that remain fanatically loyal to the party, yet don't have much to show for it...and then you have New York City, which is enjoying a huge urban revival under the leadership and guidance of two consecutive Republican mayors.

I will probably get flak for saying this, but I think the Democrats treat many minority communities as voter sheep much as the Republicans rely on the Bible belt...cater to a demographic with a very narrowly focused series of political interests, and pretend that you "represent them."

I find it ironic that Democrats complain when black Republicans evoke MLK...when you have winners like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson doing the same exact thing...they "speak" to the concerns of "their" communities, but what exactly do they have to show for it besides abusing their race card playing privileges?

Very well said Starbucks.

It was the southern Democrats who opposed the things King stood for. It was the southern Democrats who passed the Jim crow laws, stood in the door way of U of Alabama, placed the confederate flag on state flags etc etc etc.

What Craig said is pretty honest, although the whole southern strategy is a little bit over played. The old time southern Democrat was also far more conservative on many issues that the current Democratic party is. Just look at Zel Miller, and remember that Al Gore was pro-life until he decided to become a national candidate, at which point he become pro-choice. I think the southern strategy was more a ploy to get these conservative Christian voters to switch to a party that was more in line with them on a whole (The fact that the Democrats had pissed them off only helped). Don't forget this was also the time that the Democratic Party started to swing to the left, witness the 68 Democratic convention.

Take some time and look at the largest cities with Democratic leadership and then look at their murder rate, poverty rates and economic success and you will see that the Democratic leadership in many of these places is a total failure.

 

[ProfJohn]

Oh you have to love the response by the black community to this ad.

"We've gotten some e-mails and telephone calls filled with vitriol," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "They've called me Aunt Jemima, a sellout, a traitor to my race."

Once again shows that blacks can say whatever they want, but if a white said anything like that there would be hell to pay.

More great stuff from the article

"I absolutely do not regret the ads," said Rice, 62, a native of Atlanta, King's hometown. He "absolutely was a Republican," she insisted. "We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."

100% true.
and

"Anyone with any sense knows that most black people were Republican at one time. But it's a far stretch to think that in the '60s Martin Luther King was a Republican."

And here is what Republicans running for office are generally saying

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who is running for the U.S. Senate, denounced the King ad, and Donald E. Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment and a former member of the association, said it was a terrible idea.

Black Republicans railed against the radio ads, with the sharpest criticism coming from former members of the black Republican association.

"The vast majority of black Republicans I know would not have approved of the ad," Scoggins said.

Looks like the actual candidates were 100% right on this issue. Nice of the OP to over look that fact. You lefties on here can be so dishonest it is disgusting. Two posts today, this one and the Bush-Vietnam thing take a story totally out of context so you can make some BS point. Look at the sub-title of the article on the post ?Assertion About Civil Rights Leader Angers Liberals -- and Conservatives? See any mention of hint of that in the OP? NOPE.

I guess I should go find some Democratic group and post a thread about them and make it look like all Democrats support what they say... hmmmmm "Democrats want Bush to be tired as a war criminal" nah to many on here believe that already.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

"I absolutely do not regret the ads," said Rice, 62, a native of Atlanta, King's hometown. He "absolutely was a Republican," she insisted. "We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."

100% true.

100% true but also irrelevant. The sole purpose of the ad was to mislead the public and associate the modern democratic party with racism and the KKK.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
This is where I disagree with you...racism is not a systemic or even national problem...it exists in varying degrees, and is best handled at the state or even city or community level...the problem I see is that while the Democrats speak to "minority" issues, Democrats have tangibly accomplished little for minorities...just look at cities like Detroit or Los Angeles...Democrat strongholds with large minority communities that remain fanatically loyal to the party, yet don't have much to show for it...and then you have New York City, which is enjoying a huge urban revival under the leadership and guidance of two consecutive Republican mayors.

I will probably get flak for saying this, but I think the Democrats treat many minority communities as voter sheep much as the Republicans rely on the Bible belt...cater to a demographic with a very narrowly focused series of political interests, and pretend that you "represent them."

I find it ironic that Democrats complain when black Republicans evoke MLK...when you have winners like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson doing the same exact thing...they "speak" to the concerns of "their" communities, but what exactly do they have to show for it besides abusing their race card playing privileges?

Very well said Starbucks.

It was the southern Democrats who opposed the things King stood for. It was the southern Democrats who passed the Jim crow laws, stood in the door way of U of Alabama, placed the confederate flag on state flags etc etc etc.

What Craig said is pretty honest, although the whole southern strategy is a little bit over played. The old time southern Democrat was also far more conservative on many issues that the current Democratic party is. Just look at Zel Miller, and remember that Al Gore was pro-life until he decided to become a national candidate, at which point he become pro-choice. I think the southern strategy was more a ploy to get these conservative Christian voters to switch to a party that was more in line with them on a whole (The fact that the Democrats had pissed them off only helped). Don't forget this was also the time that the Democratic Party started to swing to the left, witness the 68 Democratic convention.

Take some time and look at the largest cities with Democratic leadership and then look at their murder rate, poverty rates and economic success and you will see that the Democratic leadership in many of these places is a total failure.

Much as I hate to concede it (as I have a great deal of faith in basic human goodness) relying on state or local action would have meant institutional racism would still remain the law today in many parts of this country, and de facto racism in nearly all the rest. I've had first hand experience "educating" various landlords and employers of the errors of their ways regarding racist acts, and nothing seems to get action faster than a quick wack to the wallet.

I view the great civil rights laws of the 60's much the same as the federal legislation and regulations regarding automobile safety and gas mileage. It took mandatory federal legislation to force the manufacturers to do something as simple as install seatbelts. I still remember my father (whose political views were substantially to the right of Barry Goldwater) installing seatbelts himself in our 1962 car when the dealer and manufacturer couldn't (or wouldn't) provide them. It took him about an hour to do what Detroit wouldn't.

I have no doubt that MLK was a Republican-so was Abe Lincoln. The Southern wing of the Democratic party (commonly known as Dixiecrats) became what is now the modern Republican Party. After all, MLK didn't have too much in common with Southern Democratic luminaries of the day, such as George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Jesse Helms, and similar ilk.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

"I absolutely do not regret the ads," said Rice, 62, a native of Atlanta, King's hometown. He "absolutely was a Republican," she insisted. "We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."

100% true.

100% true but also irrelevant. The sole purpose of the ad was to mislead the public and associate the modern democratic party with racism and the KKK.

And what the hell is the NAACP doing when it runs an ad with chains dragged behind a pick-up with some bogus "when Bush voted against that law it was like my father was killed again all over" ?????!!!!!!

The NAACP has been playing the race card for YEARS and no one of the left complains. Now a black Republican does the same and you cry foul?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Craig234 provided a pretty good synopsis.

What was missing is that virtually all of the southern Democrats opposed to civil rights are NOW Republicans . . . notable exceptions were vestiges such as Bob 'Klanman' Byrd.

While the modern GOP is not openly (or aggressively) racist, the remnants of the ugly South are clearly aligned with the modern GOP South.

MLK was no saint but he was definitely an exceptional man. But he would most certainly be closer to Brookings than Heritage. IMHO, he would be critical of the Democrats and openly disdainful of a GOP that shows minimal concern for most Americans in general and the disadvantaged in particular.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who is running for the U.S. Senate, denounced the King ad, and Donald E. Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment and a former member of the association, said it was a terrible idea.

Black Republicans railed against the radio ads, with the sharpest criticism coming from former members of the black Republican association.

"The vast majority of black Republicans I know would not have approved of the ad," Scoggins said.

How much you want to bet that the fringe group sponsoring the ad got a fat check from a GOP PAC?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You have it wrong, he had it correct Eaglekeeper.

To the principal's office, please.