WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Can't have it both ways. The Republican party is opposed to slavery. I can quote Woodrow Wilson, telling black men that they were dumb for voting for him.

Slavery is not a modern issue and back then, the Democrats pretty much were the conservative party. The parties right now are the exact opposite of what they were all those years ago. If you have to go back a hundred years to prove that your party doesn't have race issues, then you have a problem.

I've explained this stuff before.  The meanings of liberal and conservative change over time.  Democrats were conservative for that time, but they sure aren't now.  While conservatism may have involved racism or opposition to civil rights a few decades ago, it certainly doesn't now.  The Republican Party was founded for the express intent of opposing slavery, and Democrats fought them at every turn.  For nearly a century after the Civil War, Democrats fought Republican attempt to advance civil rights.  And contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched sides" on civil rights, either.  Democrats want to keep racial minorities poor so that they will want more handouts and thus keep voting for them, but that is the antithesis of civil rights.  And as for the history: before you say "the segregationists are dead" or "that was a long time ago," let me ask you this: if Republicans had supported slavery and segregation (which they didn't, but Democrats like to pretend they did), and you knew it, would you want to support the Republican Party, no matter how long ago it was?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Lee Atwater.

Lee Atwater never said that.  A liberal professor claimed he said that in 1981, but he made that claim in the early 2000s.  If he really said that, then why didn't this professor use it against him then when it could have destroyed his political career?  Even the (very nasty) New York Times obituary written after Lee Atwater's death never mentioned this quote.  And if he did say it, then he was talking about how racial politics in general had become frowned upon.  Pat Buchanan, arguably the architect of the "Southern strategy", said that it was an attempt to convince moderate, pro-civil rights Southerners to vote Republican as a protest against the segregationist policies f many Democrats.  Read it for yourself:
 http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Lee Atwater never said that.  A liberal professor claimed he said that in 1981, but he made that claim in the early 2000s.  If he really said that, then why didn't this professor use it against him then when it could have destroyed his political career?  Even the (very nasty) New York Times obituary written after Lee Atwater's death never mentioned this quote.  And if he did say it, then he was talking about how racial politics in general had become frowned upon.  Pat Buchanan, arguably the architect of the "Southern strategy", said that it was an attempt to convince moderate, pro-civil rights Southerners to vote Republican as a protest against the segregationist policies f many Democrats.  Read it for yourself:
 http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

It's on tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

http://www.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Lee Atwater.

Lee Atwater never said that.  A liberal professor claimed he said that in 1981, but he made that claim in the early 2000s.  If he really said that, then why didn't this professor use it against him then when it could have destroyed his political career?  Even the (very nasty) New York Times obituary written after Lee Atwater's death never mentioned this quote.  And if he did say it, then he was talking about how racial politics in general had become frowned upon.  Pat Buchanan, arguably the architect of the "Southern strategy", said that it was an attempt to convince moderate, pro-civil rights Southerners to vote Republican as a protest against the segregationist policies f many Democrats.  Read it for yourself:
 http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

This begs the question, where did all these moderate pro civil rights southerners come from, and what had they been doing for the previous a hundred years.

They were the younger generations who were less racist than their parents, grandparents, etc. from the previous century.  It was essentially Nixon's regional, civil rghts version of the "Silent Majority."

[Oldiesfreak1854]

OK, here's the link, for real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

[Oldiesfreak1854]

OK, here's the link, for real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

That doesn't disprove the fact that Atwater was on tape, saying the exact quote that you stated that he never made.

OK, here's the link to the book that video came from:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100265457/The-Truth-Nixon-s-Southern-Strategy

[Oldiesfreak1854]

OK, here's the link, for real:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

That doesn't disprove the fact that Atwater was on tape, saying the exact quote that you stated that he never made.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

So I didn't read the whole thread, but has Ben Kenobi become like Oldiesfreak with the whole freaking out over the parties' positions five decades to over a century ago and acting like this in any way even remotely relevant today?

Why does the history only matter if it's pro-Democrat or anti-Republican?  Imagine for a moment that it was Republicans, rather than Democrats, who supported slavery and segregation (most leading Democrats already do, but still...).  If you knew about it, would you want to support the Republican Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If not, then why do you give Democrats a pass for supporting those things and ignore the fact that some very brave Republicans fought and even died for over a century to end those horrors?  If you can't explain, then you understand just one reason why I am a Republican.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

They do still use it. Have a look at some of Mitt Romney's statements.

Didn't you read my links?  The Southern strategy had nothing to do with race.  It was about convincing Southern moderates who supported civil rights to fight against the segregationist Democrats by voting Republican.  And it's not ludicrous to point this stuff out.  If Republicans had been the party of slavery and segregation (as many high profile Democrats already suggest in their alternate history), no matter how long ago it was, would you want to support the GOP today?

And if Romney was really using racist "dog whistles", then surely you would have heard more controversy over it in this day and age.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

To be fair, although its ludicrous to roast the Democrats for having been the party of slavery and segregation a long time ago, many Dem posters on here aren't exactly averse to ripping the Republican Party over the southern strategy that it employed in the 1960's and 1970's as if they still use it.

They do still use it. Have a look at some of Mitt Romney's statements.

They don't employ the southern strategy anymore since there's not the need. It's just low ranking GOP'ers doing things like that. In fact the whole 'southern' strategy thing is overly hyped, since you could well have called many of the ingredients to the southern strategy the 'Ohio Blue Collar Workers Strategy' or the 'North-Eastern Concerned about Busing Parents Strategy' or even the 'California Suburbanite Strategy'. The place of the south, whilst important, has been massively blown up to block out all other elements of the strategy.

The Southern strategy had nothing to do with pandering to racists.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that.  And stop making fun of me on the Southern strategy.  Read these articles to prove my point:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100265457/The-Truth-Nixon-s-Southern-Strategy
http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Truth hurts.

Yep.  This is the truth.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that. 

Yes, that's right! After LBJ signed the civil rights act, we all held hands and danced around the camp fire!  MLK was never shot!  The KKK disbanded!  It was just a random coincidence that Obama was black, and somehow underperformed Kerry in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, and..... 

I mean in the South.  Remember that much of western Virginia also voted for Doug Wilder (who was also black) for governor in 1989.  And here are some articles to disprove your theory, including one by a liberal professor who ascribes to the revisionist history on the Southern strategy:

 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson
 http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Obama underperformed Kerry in E. Kentucky and West Virginia because of his perceived hostility to coal.  Likewise, the only congressional district in America to vote for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 was in SW Pennsylvania, the heart of coal country.  

And notice on the map of the 1989 Virginia governor's race how Wilder carried several counties in the western part of the state, on the border with Kentucky:

 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I just don't get it. Since Democrats were the party of slavery 150 yeras ago, and southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott fought the Civil Rights bills in the mid-60's, why do minorities now vote overwhelmingly for even white Democrats?? Granted Thurmond and his ilk had strong strong support from now widely-discredited Republicans like Reagan and Goldwater, but surely minorities recall how the northern moderate wing, ably represented in recent years by folks like Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords, supported civil rights legislation thenn

I just don't get it?!? I guess Oldiesfreak and Ben Kenobi are right: Minority voters are mostly political sheep who listen to their leaders blindly and can't rationally discern their own interests.

Strom Thurmond was the only major segregationist to become a Republican, and Reagan and Goldwater were both strong supporters of civil rights who opposed the 1964 CRA because of questions over its constitutionality. (Goldwater was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and was instrumental in making his family's business one of the first in the state to desegregate.  Reagan also supported the 1964 CRA, stating that it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.")  Trent Lott and Jesse Helms weren't even in politics much until the 70s.  I don't think Trent Lott was a fan of segregation necessarily, despite his statements at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party (which I think were mostly taken out of context.) 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that. 

Yes, that's right! After LBJ signed the civil rights act, we all held hands and danced around the camp fire!  MLK was never shot!  The KKK disbanded!  It was just a random coincidence that Obama was black, and somehow underperformed Kerry in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, and..... 

Obama underperformed Kerry in E. Kentucky and West Virginia because of his perceived hostility to coal.  Likewise, the only congressional district in America to vote for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 was in SW PA right in the heart of coal country?

while I agree Obama's underperformance in southern Wv and eastern KY had notably more to do with coal than race, PA-12 has relatively little coal-related employment and doesn't support your theory.

On another note, if you're going to try to sell a southern strategy revisionist historian as a 'liberal', you may not want to claim that for an article published in freakin' National Review. That is only SLIGHTLY mor compelling than your citing Pat Buchanan to claim there was never any race-based southern strategy.

First of all, race may have been a factor in 1964, but it wasn't after that.

Yes, that's right! After LBJ signed the civil rights act, we all held hands and danced around the camp fire!  MLK was never shot!  The KKK disbanded!  It was just a random coincidence that Obama was black, and somehow underperformed Kerry in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, and.....  

I mean in the South.  Remember that much of western Virginia also voted for Doug Wilder (who was also black) for governor in 1989.  And here are some articles to disprove your theory, including one by a liberal professor who ascribes to the revisionist history on the Southern strategy:

 http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson
 http://claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Obama underperformed Kerry in E. Kentucky and West Virginia because of his perceived hostility to coal.  Likewise, the only congressional district in America to vote for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008 was in SW Pennsylvania, the heart of coal country.  

And notice on the map of the 1989 Virginia governor's race how Wilder carried several counties in the western part of the state, on the border with Kentucky:

 

Actually, for the time, that wasn't a very impresive showing for a Democrat in SoWe Virginia.

Here's Clinton 1996:



Note how Clinton did just as well, if not, better in coal country, even though he lost the state as a whole while Wilder won it.  And no one is denying that coal was a big factor.  It was a HUGE factor.  But the fact of the matter is that despite a horrible economy and the fact that John Kerry was a rich Northeasterner, Obama still wasn't able to match his performance during the 2008 election.  Odd?  


And 1989?  Please, that's 25 years after.  

The article by the liberal professor was the second one, not the one in National Review.  And 2008 was 44 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  What makes you think that race wasn't a factor in 1989 but was in 2008?  Clinton was very popular in coal country, as evidenced by how he carried Kentucky and West Virginia (the latter by wide margins) both times he ran.  Obama is much more liberal than Clinton and is perceived as more hostile to coal.  (Remember when he said that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his cap-and-trade plan?)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I just don't get it. Since Democrats were the party of slavery 150 yeras ago, and southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott fought the Civil Rights bills in the mid-60's, why do minorities now vote overwhelmingly for even white Democrats?? Granted Thurmond and his ilk had strong strong support from now widely-discredited Republicans like Reagan and Goldwater, but surely minorities recall how the northern moderate wing, ably represented in recent years by folks like Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords, supported civil rights legislation thenn

I just don't get it?!? I guess Oldiesfreak and Ben Kenobi are right: Minority voters are mostly political sheep who listen to their leaders blindly and can't rationally discern their own interests.

Strom Thurmond was the only major segregationist to become a Republican, and Reagan and Goldwater were both strong supporters of civil rights who opposed the 1964 CRA because of questions over its constitutionality. (Goldwater was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and was instrumental in making his family's business one of the first in the state to desegregate.  Reagan also supported the 1964 CRA, stating that it "should be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.")  Trent Lott and Jesse Helms weren't even in politics much until the 70s.  I don't think Trent Lott was a fan of segregation necessarily, despite his statements at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party (which I think were mostly taken out of context.) 

I know, Oldies! I completely agree your post excapsulates the truth without an ounce of missing nuance or historical revisionism. Hence I agree with your and Kenobi's fundamental premise that minorities are overwhelmingly (near-universally among African-Americans) blindly ignoring history in supporting the racist Democrats rather than the true protectors of civil rigths, Romney's GOP.

I don't think Democrats are necessarily racist now, but they do have a long history of racism.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

That Williamson editorial was thoroughly debunked after he published it.
If you're genuinely interested, google for critiques.

How?  The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.

Are those just random people shooting off critiques?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.

Are those just random people shooting off critiques?

Why not judge by the argument rather than an arbitrary assessment of who you think they are?

Don't credentials matter too?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP

No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things.

Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?

Don't forget Trent Lott and Mills Godwin.

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP

No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things.

Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?

When was Jesse Helms a Democrat?  He was a Republican for his entire Senate career.  And even if all the people you cited switched to the GOP over civil rights, that still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them stayed with the Democratic Party for life.  You guys have given me four who swtiched, I know of at least eleven who didn't switch.
It wasn't until 1980 that the South started voting solidly GOP.  And blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s.  The theory that the Southern strategy was about pandering to racists ignores one VERY important detail: George Wallace's candidacy in 1968.  It would have made no sense for the GOP to campaign like that, since the same "conservative (for that time), anti-civil rights white Southern voters" that you talk about were solidly in Wallace's column.  Theodore White, who watched the 1968 campaign play out, even said so in his 1968 edition of The Making of the President.  Didn't you notice anything from the 1968 map on this site?  The Deep South went overwhelmingly for Wallace, and in three of the five Wallace states, Humphrey actually beat Nixon for second.  And in nearly every Southern state that Nixon did carry, Humphrey and Wallace's combined vote beat Nixon handily. Just go to the 1968 page on this site and check out the individual state totals.  The only Southern Nixon state where The combined Humphrey/Wallace vote was even close was Oklahoma, and even then it still beat Nixon's total. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things.

Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

Revisionist history is hogwash anyway. If you ever look up anything about the Southern strategy, it had a lot to do with appealing to white southerners upset over desegregation, so it had a lot to do with racism.

Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?

Oldies, what were the policies of the Southern Strategy that were meant to appeal to the racially progressive South? Was it opposition to busing? Relenting on implementing Brown v. board of Education?

The answer to both your questions is neither.  It wasn't like white racists suddenly had an about-face on civil rights.  It was meant to convince Southerners who already supported civil rights (many of whom had relocated from more "racially progressive" parts of the country) that Republicans were more in their best interest on those issues than the segregationists in the Democratic Party.  Nixon raised the civil rights enforcement budget by 800%, raised the percentage of desegregated Southern schools from 10% to 70%, and appointed more blacks to his administration than any of his predecessors, including Johnson.  In his first inaugural address, Nixon said the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116945

First, does this sound like someone who wanted to pander to white racists?  And second, if the South was shifting toward Republicans because of race, it would seem that it would stop once Nixon began implementing the above civil rights policies, and certainly after racial issues had been taken off the table.  But not only did it not stop, it got stronger.  The South hasn't really been voting solidly Republican since 1972; remember that Carter carried almost the entire South in 1976.  And Nixon's strength in the South in 1972 was largely because McGovern was too liberal for America as a whole, but especially the South, on so many other issues (like Vietnam); after all, Nixon carried everything except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South, at least the Deep South, started to become solidly GOP in presidential elections.  And that's not just me saying that; one of my PoliSci professors said the same thing.  And if you take a look at some of the maps on this site, you'll see that it's true.  Even in the 90s, Bill Clinton was making inroads in the South.  And the shift had started before the 60s, primarily in wealthy suburban areas as a response to the fiscal conservatism of most Republicans. 

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Mills Godwin was a Virginia segregationist and member of the Byrd Machine who served as a Democratic Governor in the 1960s before switching parties under Nixon and being elected again.  And as for Lott,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html

From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.
 

"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"

This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!

You guys complained about my sources having a right-wing bias, so why do you now complain when I point out the left-wing bias of public education?  And I am not just some random lunatic on the Internet.  I've researched this stuff, and although I will continue to do so, I don't see how your evidence proves your point in real life.  And of course the consensus can be wrong.  For example, if everyone, even those who "know their stuff" insist that 2+2=7, would you believe it simply because they said so?  Since 2+2=4, the consensus would clearly be wrong here.

Finally, before I finish this post, let me ask you this: what makes you think that Repulicans would go from voting over 80% in favor of civil rights in 1964 to pandering to bigots just four years later?

I don't necessarily want to change your mind (and I know I won't), but I want you to at least consider this.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well, you might want to consider why the party that was eagerly courting liberal Southern whites was also eagerly courting Strom Thurmond, who switched parties to support Goldwater in 1964, and whom (according to Robert Novak, anyhow) Nixon was so eager to keep onside that he let Thurmond choose his veep for him:http://patterico.com/2007/08/23/another-novak-anecdote-the-man-who-gave-us-nixon/

Surely if the "Southern Strategy" was about appealing to pro-civil rights Southerners, the first thing they would have done would have been to throw Thurmond under the bus.

Actually, that explanation is easy: Agnew, Nixon's running mate in 1968 (and then Vice President, of course) was actually a strong supporter of civil rights.  As governor of Maryland, Agnew helped pass the first open-housing law south of the Mason-Dixon line and also helped repeal Maryland's centuries-old law against interracial marriage.  (Sources: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/9318/Spiro-T-Agnew)
He was anti-violence, not anti-civil rights.  And not only that, but he actually defeated a segregationist Democrat, George Mahoney, when he was elected governor of Maryland in 1966. Mahoney's slogan in that campaign was "Your home is your castle--protect it," which many considered a slogan aimed at opposing open housing. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/21/obituaries/george-mahoney-87-maryland-candidate.html)

From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.

Seriously?  Can you really not connect the dots?  And Time was quoting someone, so don't BS about Time being liberal.

And why, Mr Oldiesfreak, was switching parties expedient?

It was expedient because the Democratic Party at that time was so weak in those states as the result of the split among Southern Democrats over civil rights (not to mention other issues) that Wallace capitalized on in 1968, which arguably ensured Nixon's election.  To paraphrase Bill Clinton, they were trying to get elected, and they couldn't do it as Democrats.  Just to prove my point, Upton Sinclair did the same thing when he ran for governor of California in 1934; although he was a member of the Socialist Party, he registered as a Democrat and ran as a Democrat becasue he knew he stood no chance of winning as a Socialist.

Please explain the difference between using a Pat Buchanan quote and National Review articles to 'prove' that the Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism and using a Pol Pot quote and RevLeft posts to 'prove' that the Khmer Rouge regime had nothing to do with killing people.
After you have done that, please source your claim on public education having a left-wing bias.

First, please explain to me the difference between using quotes from a Time article and other left-wing sources to prove that the Southern strategy was race-based and using those same sources you mentioned to prove that the Khmer Rouge wasn't about killing people.  And as for liberal bias in public education, even the New York Times has admitted that the overwhelming majority of college professors identify as liberals.  Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal-2.html

If this is true, then what makes you think that some of their biases won't inevitably seep in, even if they are trying to be objective?

[facehoof]
If Southern white racists joined the party between '64 and '68, were the Republicans the same group of people?

Southern white racists did not join the party between 1964 and 1968.  They may have voted for Goldwater in 1964, but after that, they went right back to voting Democrat, as evidenced by George Wallace running in 1968 (albeit as an Independent) and candidates like George Mahoney, Herman Talmadge, and Lester Maddox.  You seem like a smart guy; does being a member of one party and voting for one candidate of the opposing party suddenly make you a member of that person's party?  For example, let's say that there was a Democrat running for office that I thought better represented my views than his/her Republican opponent, and I voted for that Democrat once.  Does that mean that I, someone who has identified as a loyal and committed Republican for nearly all of my (short) life to this point, have suddenly become a Democrat?  Of course not.  For that matter, Wallace may have run as an Independent in 1968, but when he ran for president again in 1972, he did it as a Democrat.  And when he ran for governor of Alabama again in 1970 (still before he had a change of heart on race), he ran as a Democrat.  And after the assassination attempt, when he was elected to his last two terms as governor in 1974 and 1982, he won both those times as a Democrat.  He was a Democrat for life, both before and after the assassination attempt that made him reconsider his views on race.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Southern white racists did not join the party between 1964 and 1968.  They may have voted for Goldwater in 1964, but after that, they went right back to voting Democrat, as evidenced by George Wallace running in 1968 (albeit as an Independent) and candidates like George Mahoney, Herman Talmadge, and Lester Maddox.  You seem like a smart guy; does being a member of one party and voting for one candidate of the opposing party suddenly make you a member of that person's party?  

Obviously, it's more complicated than one party was racist or the other party was racist.  Basically, the white establishment in the South was historically part of the Democratic party and they were historically racist.  But, they weren't racist because they were Democrats.  

Outside the South during the 50s-70s, the Democrats were more supportive of civil rights than Republicans.  If you take out the South, a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the civil rights act in Congress. Or look at Harry Truman desegregating the military.  Or just look at the black vote during this time.  Democrats won the black vote for President every time by a large margin.

Post 1972, direct appeals to racism and segregation were a net negative for politicians at the national level.  Neither party was going to repeal the civil rights act, segregation was over as a political issue.  Racism still existed though.  Republicans made inroads with white votes in the South during the 70s-90s mainly by playing up morals/family values issues and anti-Communism.  However, some Republicans also used racist appeals and talked about "state's rights."  Not a huge percentage of racist whites changed their registration to Republicans.  But, the gains Republicans made in the South were among the white racist establishment and not blacks, the Wallace voters, not the Humphrey voters.  

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.  Republicans were more supportive of civil rights overall, though.  Although Truman issued the executive order to desegregate the military, it was never enforced until Eisenhower became president.  And as for your last statement, that is demonstrably false.  In three of the five Southern states that Wallace carried in 1968, Humphrey beat Nixon for second.  Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the GOP by white racists, I would say.  Blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s in response to the New Deal, and even if non-Southern Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act more than Republicans (which isn't even fair when you include Southerners like John Tower with the other Republicans), the majority of the bill's opposition came from Democrats (that's if you include the South).  Not all Southern Democrats were racists or segregationists, and though they weren't racist because they were Democrats, they were Democrats because they were racist.
You are right about Republican gains being largely the result of anti-Communism and family values (not to mention fiscal conservatism in wealthy suburban areas of the South), and I commend you for bringing this up.  I would also like to thank you for pointing out that both parties have had their civil rights failures and succeses, because that is definitely true.  But overall, the history is much more favorable to Republicans.  
Finally, thank you so much for being civil when making your points, even if I disagree with some of them.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Southern white racists did not join the party between 1964 and 1968.  They may have voted for Goldwater in 1964, but after that, they went right back to voting Democrat, as evidenced by George Wallace running in 1968 (albeit as an Independent) and candidates like George Mahoney, Herman Talmadge, and Lester Maddox.  You seem like a smart guy; does being a member of one party and voting for one candidate of the opposing party suddenly make you a member of that person's party?  

Obviously, it's more complicated than one party was racist or the other party was racist.  Basically, the white establishment in the South was historically part of the Democratic party and they were historically racist.  But, they weren't racist because they were Democrats.  

Outside the South during the 50s-70s, the Democrats were more supportive of civil rights than Republicans.  If you take out the South, a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the civil rights act in Congress. Or look at Harry Truman desegregating the military.  Or just look at the black vote during this time.  Democrats won the black vote for President every time by a large margin.

Post 1972, direct appeals to racism and segregation were a net negative for politicians at the national level.  Neither party was going to repeal the civil rights act, segregation was over as a political issue.  Racism still existed though.  Republicans made inroads with white votes in the South during the 70s-90s mainly by playing up morals/family values issues and anti-Communism.  However, some Republicans also used racist appeals and talked about "state's rights."  Not a huge percentage of racist whites changed their registration to Republicans.  But, the gains Republicans made in the South were among the white racist establishment and not blacks, the Wallace voters, not the Humphrey voters.  

"State's rights" was not used by Republicans as a code word.  By then, nobody wanted to bring segregation back, so there were clearly no racist appeals in that.

You do the truth no favors by pretending that "nobody wanted to bring segregation back" when there are still people who would love segregation today. After all, over 40% of Alabama voters cast a ballot in support of an interracial marriage ban as recently as 2000.

What I mean is that no rational person would want to bring segregation back, and such a position would be political suicide today.  And that was 12 years ago; I'm sure there were plenty of people in both parties who voted against repealing the interracial marriage law.  I'm sure the majority in both parties, at least nationally, would be against banning interracial marriage.  And don't forget that Democrats always used to scare voters back in the day by telling them that Republicans would repeal those bans.