Biden: Romney will "put ya'll back in chains"

[Ebowed]

That said, everyone knows Strom was no racist with that black child he fathered..

I don't suppose sexists can father women, either.

[Politico]

Right. I studied LBJ in a class I took in school, and he was no civil rights trailblazer. He signed it because the public wanted it, and the bill passed with overwhelming Republican support and declared the Democrats would have the "negro" vote for generations to come.

That said, most of the racist Democrats switched parties, so today's GOP isn't the same as yesterdays, but the Democrats still want to keep the black man down, remind them they are at a disadvantage, etc... and those type of things will never end racism in this country. Of course Biden was playing the race card here, but it's what I have come to expect from Obama. They must divide and conquer. It's like the GOP using gay marriage/abortion in the past. It's politics, but I wish it wasn't that way because we have bigger fish to fry than that.

This is a good post.

Also, some people on here need to realize that most people who were adults in the South during segregation are now dead. Many of them stayed Democrats for life even if many of them voted Republican at the presidential level (e.g., largely for national security reasons after the disastrous selection of George McGovern in 1972). Then again, let's not forget that it was Wallace, a Democrat running as an Independent, who won much of the South in 1968. It was Carter, a Democrat, who won much of the South in 1976. It was the South that was closest in 1980 with even Dukakis doing well there in '88 before his implosion (with Bentsen chosen to help deliver Texas). Clinton did fairly well for himself in the South, and Gore would have done better there if not for Clinton's sexual imbroglios and opposition from the NRA.

In the final analysis, "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is completely blown out of proportion for whatever reason(s).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Right. I studied LBJ in a class I took in school, and he was no civil rights trailblazer. He signed it because the public wanted it, and the bill passed with overwhelming Republican support and declared the Democrats would have the "negro" vote for generations to come.

That said, most of the racist Democrats switched parties, so today's GOP isn't the same as yesterdays, but the Democrats still want to keep the black man down, remind them they are at a disadvantage, etc... and those type of things will never end racism in this country. Of course Biden was playing the race card here, but it's what I have come to expect from Obama. They must divide and conquer. It's like the GOP using gay marriage/abortion in the past. It's politics, but I wish it wasn't that way because we have bigger fish to fry than that.

This is a good post.

Also, some people on here need to realize that most people who were adults in the South during segregation are now dead. Many of them stayed Democrats for life even if many of them voted Republican at the presidential (e.g., largely for national security reasons after the disastrous selection of George McGovern in 1972). Then again, let's not forget that it was Wallace, a Democrat running as an Independent, who won much of the South in 1968. It was Carter, a Democrat, who won much of the South in 1976. It was the South that was closest in 1980 with even Dukakis doing well there in '88 before his implosion (with Bentsen chosen to help deliver Texas). Clinton did fairly well for himself in the South.

In the final analysis, "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is completely blown out of proportion for whatever reason(s).

Exactly.  The latests academic research shows that it was a combination of economic issues, in-migration from areas that had previously been more Republican in the past, and the religious conservatives' shift toward Republican in 1980 (Reagan) that helped move the South toward the GOP, not race.  The Southern strategy had nothing to do with pandering to racists, either.

[Brittain33]

Tell us more about this latest academic research and where it was published.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Here it is.  The author is by all appearances a liberal professor and obviously subscribes to the liberal narrative on the Southern strategy, but he nonetheless debunks the myth that the shift toward Republicans in the South was based on race:
 http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here it is.  The author is by all appearances a liberal professor and obviously subscribes to the liberal narrative on the Southern strategy, but he nonetheless debunks the myth that the shift toward Republicans in the South was based on race:
 http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

I don't see how someone associated with the American Enterprise Institute can possibly be assumed to be liberal as you have done, and judging by his other articles on that site, it is clear he is conservative.

[Politico]

It just seems like another one of those myths about race that the Democrats have pushed so much that we've all started to believe it. Everybody believing it is a real phenomenon certainly serves the agenda of the Democratic Party, especially when it comes to motivating African-Americans (especially in Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and the northeast) to vote reliably Democrat with no consideration of an alternative.

If "Nixon's Southern Strategy" was so effective, how come Carter won all but one state in the South back in '76, a few short years after Nixon's "master plan"? And how come the South was the most competitive region in 1980?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans are rayyy ssisss. Hurf durf.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't the case during the Carter Administration, and it's not the case now. The workforce participation rate for black men is what it was in the 50's. So yes, Obama has reversed all the gains since the civil rights act.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The demographic that is the worst off is black men. Why, if the democrat policies are designed to assist this particular group, is this the case? My argument is that democrat policies are designed to hurt, not help black people. They are working as intended.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And that's the point. The democrats see it as racial progress when more black americans are on government assistance. How is this any different from slavery?

[Politico]

Obi Wan, I foresee ridiculous, partisan claims that Reagan unleashed crack and AIDS upon black men even though Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with the causes of either epidemic *sigh*

Might as well launch a preemptive strike against the attack: Correlation does not imply causation.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

[Ebowed]

So yes, Obama has reversed all the gains since the civil rights act.

In the 1950s, it was easier to find accommodation for a dog than a black person in Mississippi hotels.

My argument is that democrat policies are designed to hurt, not help black people. They are working as intended.

Are you attempting to suggest that unemployment insurance, food stamps, reversal of the disparity between sentencing related to cocaine and crack possession, etc., are designed to hurt black people?

The democrats see it as racial progress when more black americans are on government assistance. How is this any different from slavery?

And somehow Biden was making a 'gaffe' when he made this comment

[Ebowed]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

You have got to be joking - you are normally a pretty reasonable fellow, what is going on here?  You do realise that if the government were failing to offer this sort of assistance, the circumstances would be far more grim?

[Politico]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

Yeah, it is hard to argue against the sentiment that Clinton (especially after 1994) was good for most everybody, black people included. The current president? Not so much, despite what may seem obvious at first glance. As cliched as it may sound, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Reagan also has to get some credit for getting the ball rolling on the demand for welfare reform.

[Ebowed]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

Yeah, it is hard to argue against the sentiment that Clinton was good for most everybody, black people included. The current president? Not so much, despite what may seem obvious at first glance. As cliched as it may sound, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Reagan also has to get some credit for getting the ball rolling on the demand for welfare reform.

You are acting like Obama has repealed the stipulations of the 90s welfare reform.  Do you believe everything the Romney campaign tells you?

[Politico]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

Yeah, it is hard to argue against the sentiment that Clinton was good for most everybody, black people included. The current president? Not so much, despite what may seem obvious at first glance. As cliched as it may sound, the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Reagan also has to get some credit for getting the ball rolling on the demand for welfare reform.

You are acting like Obama has repealed the stipulations of the 90s welfare reform.

He will if he can. It's undeniable he's trying to do so with the regulatory authority of the executive branch rather than law. It's also undeniable that government assistance is not helping many people find jobs. It is valid to worry that Obama's Way is going to reinvent the culture of dependence and all that entails.

[Ebowed]

He will if he can.

Cite?

It's undeniable he's trying to do so with the regulatory authority of the executive branch rather than law.

Cite?

It's also undeniable that government assistance is not helping many people find jobs.

Are you suggesting that the welfare regulations already in place, as signed into law by President Clinton, which you tout as pure brilliance, are not helping many people find jobs?

It is valid to worry that Obama's Way is going to reinvent the culture of dependence and all that entails.

Explain what this entails.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Add the total working in the government offices and you get close to 48, 49 percent of the workforce.

If more people are riding the cart than pulling it, how long are the saps pulling the cart going to bother?

Economic facts aren't partisan. They are just as much facts as gravity or electricity. An administration defies them at their peril.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the 1950's 90 percent of black children had a father in the home. Now it's about 25 percent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. That has been the result over the last 50 years. The average black man today is less likely to have a job, more likely to be in prison, less likely to be raising his children, less likely to have been raised by his father, more likely to be addicted by drugs, less likely to have enough food to eat, more likely to be homeless than his peer in the 1950s.

All things that these programs are designed to mitigate have impoverished the black man today from the black man of 1950.

Is that not sufficient evidence that the policies are worthless? The best way to provide for a black man and his family is three letters. J-O-B.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given how he belongs to the party of slavery it's a rather large gaffe.

[© tweed]

Biden synthesizing Marx's maxim with the memory of black slavery?  best sh**t he's said during his term.

[Politico]

He will if he can.

Cite?

It's undeniable he's trying to do so with the regulatory authority of the executive branch rather than law.

Cite?

The July 12 directive inviting states to apply for waivers from welfare reform rules that require welfare-to-work via requirements to seek a job and engage in job training. We all know what the Big City Democratic politicians are going to do with this if we let them. As history has demonstrated, nothing is easier for them than essentially buying votes with welfare.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that the welfare regulations already in place, as signed into law by President Clinton, which you tout as pure brilliance, are not helping many people find jobs?[/quote]

I am suggesting that Obama's massive expansion of 184 federal, means-tested welfare programs is not helping people find jobs (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explain what this entails.
[/quote]

Poverty of aspiration among the poor (no hope, no dreams, just fear and hate...kind of like Obama 2012, I suppose), increasing taxes for workers and retired people, and resentment across the divide. In other words, the way it used to be before Clinton's Welfare Reform.

[DrScholl]

Here it is.  The author is by all appearances a liberal professor and obviously subscribes to the liberal narrative on the Southern strategy, but he nonetheless debunks the myth that the shift toward Republicans in the South was based on race:
 http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Ever hear of Lee Atwater? He admitted the southern strategy. What other explanation is there for a mainly Northern, moderate party making gains in the South? It's very clear what it was about and no one can deny it.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the 1950's 90 percent of black children had a father in the home. Now it's about 25 percent.

I see, and I assume the rate of whites with single mothers (a group of people, regardless of race, doomed to turn to heroin and fireworks) has simultaneously decreased since the 1950s.

Less likely to have a job than in the 1950s?  Compare rates of wealth.  More likely to be in prison?  Compare number of potential crimes, and enforcement of related laws along racial lines.  In a society where conviction of a felony is a serious impediment to reasonable employment, you may as well be throwing these people into the ocean and killing the lifeguards while you're at it.

No, the Democrats are not thriving off of the black community's continued plight: they are the only major party to make any attempt, serious or otherwise, to address it, and the need for you to pretend that the parties are the same as they were in the 1860s demonstrates as such.

[Politico]

Here it is.  The author is by all appearances a liberal professor and obviously subscribes to the liberal narrative on the Southern strategy, but he nonetheless debunks the myth that the shift toward Republicans in the South was based on race:
 http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

Ever hear of Lee Atwater? He admitted the southern strategy. What other explanation is there for a mainly Northern, moderate party making gains in the South? It's very clear what it was about and no one can deny it.

Lee Atwater claimed a lot of things. Dude even claimed he found Jesus in a particular version of a Bible he claimed to read all of the time. When folks went to retrieve his possessions after his death, they found that Bible still in the plastic-wrap. Bottomline: A spin doctor is going to spin and exaggerate. The Willie Horton ad was undeniably effective (And Atwater stole the idea from Al Gore's 1988 primary campaign), but it was because it showed how weak Dukakis was on crime. The ad would have been almost exactly as effective had Horton happened to be a white male. The rational response from people who saw the ad was, "what the hell kind of governor lets monsters like that go out on weekend furloughs?" not "BRING BACK DUH SEGREGATION! LONG LIVE DIXIE!" as evidenced by Dukakis' poor performance across the entire country, not just the South.

Explain Carter's massive success in 1976 and relative success in 1980 with regards to the South. Furthermore, explain Clinton's success in the South in 1992 and 1996.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Clinton probably did the most for the black man of any Democrat merely because the economy was excellent during his presidency and he signed welfare reform to encourage people to go to work. Obama has done the complete opposite. Something like 130 million Americans are getting money from the government now. That is insane!

You have got to be joking - you are normally a pretty reasonable fellow, what is going on here?  You do realise that if the government were failing to offer this sort of assistance, the circumstances would be far more grim?

I am not opposed to unemployment for a certain amount of time, but at this stage it is getting out of control. We cannot afford it financially in the long term or short term, and it is hurting the job market. For example, several family friends are in the HR business, one for a large resort and the other owns the largest firm in a city in NC. Throughout conversations, they have expressed that many of the people they interview and offer jobs turn them down because they can make a comparable sum through simply taking government checks. The resort is having to bring in people from Jamaica in order to run because locals do not want to work or cannot pass a drug screen.

Now we can get into an argument amount the minimum wage laws, which I agree should be raised, but my point is unlimited unemployment or the perpetual extensions of it does not help get people back to work. Humans are pleasure seekers by nature. If we have the option of working or making a bit less and simply sitting around collecting checks, most people will unfortunately choose collecting government checks. Obama will have to tackle entitlements at some point to ease the bleeding.