History Of The Democrats And The KKK.

An example of that switch in today's headlines

Republican Congressman Jokes about Democrats Getting "Lynched" at Town Halls, GOP Audience Laughs

Hey PNB,

Yes that is the usual refrain we hear, but who stood in the way of Civil Rights and who pushed it forward?

Here is some lines about the C.R. act of 1964 from Congresslink.Org:

After outlining specific recommendations and lining up bipartisan support, the Kennedy administration sent its proposal for a bill to Congress on June 19. Political factors continued to shape the President's attitude. He worked to secure Republican congressional assistance; he sought unsuccessfully to ward off opposition from the southern wing of his own party; and he urged African American leaders to control demonstrations more carefully so as not to scare off potential supporters by inciting violence in the streets.

and this

The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

Then we have the Senate Record

When the House-passed bill reached the Senate floor in March 1964, three groups of senators formed: pro-civil rights Democrats, southern Democrats opposed to the bill, and Republicans. Senator Hubert H. Humphrey led the Democrats who supported the bill and worked actively for its passage. As Senate majority whip, Humphrey enjoyed the support of Mike Mansfield, Senate majority leader. Together they were determined to pass the legislation and even arranged grueling twelve-hour daily sessions to wear down the opposition. Humphrey's task was to line up supporters to defend the bill in debate, to persuade reluctant members of his party to vote for passage, to encourage publicity, and to count votes. The Senator from Minnesota labored hard for passage and sought cooperation from many sources, including the Republicans.

Senator Richard Russell, Democrat from Georgia, led the so-called opposition forces. The group was also known as the "southern bloc." It was composed of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, John Tower of Texas. Although a hopeless minority, the group exerted much influence because Senate rules virtually guaranteed unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture. The "southern bloc" relied on the filibuster to postpone the legislation as long as possible, hoping that support for civil rights legislation throughout the country would falter. The Democratic leadership and Humphrey could not control the southern wing of the party.

And finally, this little tid-bit:

The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

Emphasis mine

Source

Please know that I am Not a Republican, I just like history to be accurately represented.

If you have a sourced article that backs your contention, I would be glad to read it.

Have a good day,

Aloha

that is typical liberal nonsense... the dems and repubs switched in the 20th century.

If by "Liberal Nonsense" you mean "historical fact" then you are right. If you took the time to read a book or two, or take a Political Sciences course, you'd know. Hell, anyone over the age of 75 can tell you about it as well.

The dems have just moved the blacks to a new political plantation, and still regularly lynch and destroy any black (from powell to rice to thomas) who dares flee the plantation.

And this shows how little you know, or choose to ignore, about current events. Powell was done in by the GOP, specifically the Bush admin when he refused to continue to be their spokesman for misinformation. Rice has never once been attacked because of her color by the Left. If you can provide a source for evidence, then I'll read it. Thomas, also, has never been attacked by the Left because of race, he was attacked because the FBI had a report from Anita Hill that she was almost sexually harassed by Thomas.

and still regularly lynch and destroy any black (from powell to rice to thomas) who dares flee the plantation.

Well, as a "Dem," these are the opinions I've noticed on the left regarding the three prominent African-Americans you mentioned:

Powell -- the left just loves him. But they would liked to have seen him show more backbone while Sec. of State (particularly while holding a vile of fake anthrax at the U.N.)

Rice -- the left really doesn't care either way about her except to say that she was simply a placeholder national security advisor/Sec. of State. Even though intelligent, she was always more suited for academia than for politics.

Thomas -- if anyone wants to keep African-Americans back on the plantations, it is Clarence Thomas (all except for hiim of course.)

Hey Blearc,

I know of only one member of either houses of congress that used to "Hood-Up" with the Klan, and that member is a Democrat. The truth is plain, but those who are blinded by ideology can not or will not see the stains inside their own glass house.

Be proud of your parties history! 4,763 lynched Americans at the hands of the Klan and Democrats!!

Wow, so glad I'm a Liberty Loving Libertarian (we have No such baggage).

Have a good'un,

Aloha

repubs are happy to welcome dems... though those blacks are deemed to be race traitors by the leftist race machine. Republicans just ask blacks to live up to the same standards as whites in terms of behavior, academic acheivement and vocational skills.

dems have been pandering to the lowest common denominator of black culture for decades-- giving them the easy out of racism to explain any failure and offering handouts in the form of welfare and affirmative action. In 50 years, the democratic race machine has done what 200 years of democratic-forced slavery and oppression could not do -- they have caused the decay of black families and culture.

robert how old is that one senator? Byrd or Bird not sure on the spelling.

I'm not really getting the need to try to show the Dem's as racists.........

OOOOOh its the Soto confirmation today, deflection ahh I see.

But the libertarians don't have any successes either.

but neihter of you answered the simple question I posed, where are the majority of memeber of Congress representing?

Blearc,

I understand the point you are making, but it is besides the point of Larry's seed. I can not argue the limited involvement of elected Libertarians on the National Level as that is apparent to any watcher of thing politic.

What gets me about this issue, and why I want this book, is the blatant misrepresentation of the history of race relations... i.e. that the Democrat party is the be all and end all for Civil Rights and they look out for minorities more than Republicans do - well that just ain't so. It is just so dishonest and not supported by the historical record.

Hey don't get me wrong, I am not saying the Democrats are all racists or not, just as I'm not saying Republicans are all racist or not. What I am saying is that in my rational mind (debatable?) I can not fathom how anyone who believes in equal treatment of all people, can follow a party that holds a man like Sen. Byrd up as a leader. The same way I would have viewed any Party and membership who would have supported David Duke.

Does it really matter how old a Klansman is? Does time wash the blood of all those innocent people, from a race criminal's hands?

My bad if I seem a bit perturbed by this issue, but it is one that galls me. I just commentated on an article posted by a real left leaner here on the vine, who asked Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Byrd to step aside for the good of the party... I saw that and said "Good-to Go a lefty who has some sense of personal honor.' Well surprise surprise surprise... the article was calling for them to step down because they are both ill and it is getting in the way of the Dem. goals... and though they are both "worthy of respect" they should step aside. WTF A murderer of a young woman (OK Manslaughter), and an Old Klansman are worthy of respect... WOW.

I am still a bit touchy with the whole Sen. Byrd dealio, and this seed brought it to the forefront of my mind.

Have a good'un,

Aloha

Deflection from the Soto confirmation...........

Deflection from the Soto confirmation...........

Good point, I'd amend my post, even:

For Christ's sake, we just confirmed a Puerto Rican WOMAN to the SCOTUS. Unless you're living in the past (like many, apparently) this is what counts, not the old democratic party.